Author: Amir Ban
Date: 14:49:47 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 07:32:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 05:24:46, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >Ok, this should be verified with a secret position before the tournament start. >If a programmer is found as cheating, than unless he can demostrate it is due to >a bug for that specific position it will be disqualified. > >> >>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. > >Maybe. Mine is a proposal. Maybe there is a better idea to handle this. > In WCCC 2001 Shredder lost a game to Junior where it was showing +6 at some point. The rule at WCCC is that the TD must allow resignation or agreed draws. E.g. the draw Junior-Fritz was already agreed several moves back, but the TD wanted to see the rooks off before giving consent. I think that Jonny was not allowed to resign, and rightly so. In the critical phase of the game black had mate threats of its own, and with the sort of bugs Shredder was suffering, even a loss was not inconceivable. It was noted by several after that game that given that operators are not allowed to resign or draw when they want to, it's ridiculous to allow them to lose deliberately. Amir
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.