Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:24:46 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>>My point is: >>> >>>1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >>>the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >>>2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >>>chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >>>concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >>>hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? >> > >Hi, > >first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view >and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. >Still I do not agree with you...see below. > >>The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. > >Correct. >I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes >down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). The problem is that with the new rule programmers have no problem to change their evaluation and never show a score of more than -9.999 pawns against themselves even in case of mate. It is easy to do it for me by dividing all scores by 10 so 99.99 that is mate in one today becomes 9.999 The only way to implement it correctly is if an external program does the evaluation. Note that I have no problem with new rules. <snipped> >Some years ago, I was the operator to M-Chess in a tournament near where I live >and we were playing against a Yugoslavian chess player which got a better >position, but the program got a 3-fold repetition position. I call the TD and he >told me that I made the claim in the wrong way (I moved first and than call the >TD), so I could not ask for the draw. It was not important that I did not knew >the right procedure... >I accepted the TD decision without protesting at all. This is my style and I am >proud of it. This is a different case because the operator is part of the game in comp-human games and if you make an operator error and make moves that the program did not play it is your problem when it was never the case in WCCC in comp-comp games 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.