Re: So when is a Draw not a Draw???

 

"Sidney Cadot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...

> Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
> > Sidney Cadot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Mondo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Yes it was a draw by three fold repetition.
> >
> >
> >>The Rules of Chess mandate that a claim has to be made to this effect.
> >
> >
> > Yes.  The "program" said "this is a 3-fold repetition."
>
> What program: the GUI or the engine?

The http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 story says:

"The program Jonny had seen this and claimed the draw (while displaying a 0.00 score). But as Johannes Zwanzger later said on the Playchess.com server: "I did not want to draw the game in this way against Stefan, just because his program has a bug." So he had simply executed the move on the board, entered Shredder's reply and continued with the game."

 

So, if Jonny found 0.00 score in such dangerous situation (black led one pawn in material,

but as I understand it was is tactical troubles), it found three fold repetition - not the GUI.

Also Jonny realized that draw is the best score in this position (if it does not contain a bug too).

 

PS: GUI cannot find 0.00 score without engine, because engine can have its own way of scoring draws.

E.g. "irreconcilable" engine can score own forced draw as -0.1. Fortunately I don't know such

crazy engines.