Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:53:32 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 12:54:45, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >For me situation is less clear here. See >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?332067 > >Thanks, >Eugene It looks very clear to me: It should not be allowed that programs use someone else's GUI. Because the GUI has chess knowledge built into it, say for opening book line selection, tablebase probing, draw claiming, etc. But The ICGA has allowed this for years so they are stuck with it. In light of that, the "program" made a draw claim. The operator chose to ignore the claim and play on. That is _clearly_ outside the rules. And I do mean _clearly_. The issue of the GUI or the engine claiming the draw is moot. They are both part of the chess-playing software. This needs to be stopped as well. Of course we then run into the shared book problem which _also_ needs to be stopped. In short, the ICCA/ICGA has simply wrecked the idea of computer chess tournaments by making stupid decisions... > >On November 30, 2003 at 12:49:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 11:43:45, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>>The failure of Fritz to claim a draw in it's game against Shredder indicates >>>either that Fritz was improperly programmed or it simply didn't see the mate. >>> >>>It is quite clear, to me at least, that chess-playing programs should be >>>programmed to make draw offer and resignation choices and that they be made >>>appropriately. It should not be necessary for a human to make those choices for >>>the chess-playing program. [Am I missing something?] >> >>YOu don't mean fritz. And the answer is that the program _did_ claim the >>draw properly. The human failed to handle it properly because he thought he >>had the right to supercede the program's wishes, which was wrong of him. >> >>Most every program I have seen claims draws properly... >> >>There are two cases. It is your move and the position has already occurred, >>you can claim a draw immediately. It is your move, and by making a particular >>move you repeat the position a third time. You write the move down, tell your >>opponent "I am going to play this move and I claim a draw because the resulting >>position is a 3-fold repetition" and call the TD. >> >>In the WCCC the human is an operator, not an active participant. That wasn't >>upheld here. The operator made an intentional error that penalized his program >>and another entrant "Fritz". That is not allowable, except when you have an >>oddball group running a tournament where "rules are meant to be broken." >> >> >>> >>>Perhaps there is room for improvement in the software associated with such >>>offers. >>> >>>There seems to be an issue as to whether the decision software should be in the >>>engine or in the GUI. IMHO, it should be in the engine. >>> >>>Perhaps the logic &/or algorithms associated with such choices should be >>>reviewed to see how improvements may be made? >>> >>>How do the open-source engines, like Crafty, deal with this issue? >> >>_correctly_. >> >>:) >> >> >>> >>>Bob D.
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.