Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:51:48 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 19:07:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 17:38:11, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 16:45:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:00, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>>>>>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>>>>>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>>>>>for the machine. >>>>> >>>>>By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >>>>>the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >>>>>but to play on (or resign). >>>>> >>>>>QED >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>>> >>>>I do not understand what you are saying. >>>> >>>>My point is based on the following: >>>> >>>>1.The contest was between machines. >>> >>>No, between chess engines. >> >>;-) >> >>> >>>>2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase >>>>GUI. >>> >>>OK, but the engine was playing, not the chess GUI. >> >>This where we part company..... (It chose book moves, I believe.). >> >> >>> >>>>3.It would have been better if the machines played without human interference, >>>>but failing this the operator should not have been able to influenece the >>>>result. >>> >>>This was allowed as the operator should have been the one to ask the TD to be >>>allowed to resign...see Darsen post which is complete... >>> >>>>4.The machine claimed a draw (ie its 'move' was draw). >>> >>>No, the machine did not claimed a draw. The GUI advised that there was a 3-moves >>>repetition. This is not a draw claim. >>>Since the programmer can set the draw value in it's program. If the setting is >>>accept a draw only when the score is -50, than the GUI showing a 3 moves >>>repetition would be ignored by the engine...so this is not a draw claim, but >>>only a info display... >>>It is therefore wrong to claim that an info advising a 3 moves repetions is an >>>automatic draw. The program should state clearly "I am going to play "..." which >>>will draw the game according to FIDE rule..." > >As far as I know no single program does it according to the fide rules. There is at least _one_ that now does it _exactly_ according to the FIDE rules, even though I do not consider this to be important in the human-operated events... > >Even my movei does it by claiming a draw together with the move that it is going >to play. > >No problem with changing the rules of computer chess that are not the fide rules >but you should tell it to the participants before the championship and not after >it. > >I wonder what happened in other drawn games like Diep-falcon. SSSSSHHHHHhhhhhhh. Don't ask questions that have answers some won't like. Even shredder (according to others) does _not_ claim the draw correctly. But I am sure it has claimed many draws... > >Did one of the engines in the game claimed the draw correctly based on your >definition? > >Uri
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.