Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:25:39 12/10/03
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..." Hi, > >As far as I know no single program does it according to the fide rules. Correct, so do you think it is correct to automatically claim a draw if the score goes to 0.00 or on a 3-fold repetition? I think that what we learned here is that we need to improve this to avoid different opinions on this matter. To me this means to me that the programs are not able to play chess as they are not in accordance with FIDE rules. This needs to be changed. Also if is OFFENSIVE for an opponent that a program continuo to play when the score is lower than -10. I think this value is already very high as normally with -3 the games are 95% lost already. I really do not believe one can play against Kasparov at -10 without him leaving the room... > >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. Correct, but if top level TD agree with the decision that was taken this means to me that the situation was at least not fully clear. I believe that it was the correct one and to be honest we would not have liked at all to win a Championship "forcing" Fritz to get a draw in the same situation. I have been reported that the Fritz team did the same thing as they made no objection. So I must admit they are quite sportive and they did deserve the playoff also from their sportive attitude too... > >I wonder what happened in other drawn games like Diep-falcon. > >Did one of the engines in the game claimed the draw correctly based on your >definition? Did I say the opposite? But here "someone" said the we should have asked for the draw because of the 3-fold repetition which is NOT AN AUTOMATIC DRAW and the programs should handle that correctly and not the GUI, which can only give info and advise the opening moves... > >Uri Sandro
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.