Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 13:41:55 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 16:09:49, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 15:49:38, Bob Durrett wrote: > ><snip> >>Well, a math major ought to see that a draw is not the only possible outcome. >>The game could continue forever. That would not be a draw. ><snip> > ><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>... > >Bob! You, too? Please! Don't leave me! >... > >Continuing for ever is definitely not within the rules of chess. I guess if you are going to impose 50-move and repetition of position rules, then it may seem that a draw is the only outcome. But what if the 50-move limit is reached exactly one move before mate? [Those rules, effectively, prune what I now know is called a "solution tree." See how smart I've become?] But there is another way things can go wrong. Adjudication! The computer operator(s) and tournament officials may end the game before the 50-move rule can take effect. We all know that adjudicators are unpredictable. There is also the possibility that the computer may crash and resign, or one of the operators wants to get away and resigns just to end it all. Then, there is "money under the table." We all know about that! Arguably, an "Act of God" might end the game with a bang! Etceteras. Anyway, it is clear that "the other guy" is wrong. On principle! : ) > >Internette Grüße, >Ingo
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.