Author: Helmut Conrady
Date: 11:19:43 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2005 at 09:11:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 12, 2005 at 08:53:58, jefkaan wrote: > >>On May 11, 2005 at 21:52:59, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>> >>>Hi Dann, imo his question was open to programers, even though he addressed Dr. >>>Hyatt. >> >>yep, that was the case indeed, but maybe i didn't formulate it >>precise enough; see my next question below >> >>>Taking it to e-mail may not be wrong, but it seems anyone with an informed >>>thought out answer would suffice. >> >>indeed, even Vincent, but personally i wouldn't be interested in >>whether the current Fide rules fundamentally are correct or not, >>if you know what i mean.. >> >>thanks first of all about notifying me that also the 6 man egtb >>are keeping the 50 move rule in mind (with the exception as Dann C) >>pointed out that they dont have a move history); simply didnt know that, >>as i'm not using the 6 man thing yet, just contemplating it >>(via Internet either with Shredder 9 or Chess Assist8.1, eg >>for endgame studies). >> >>secondly, wouldnt it be interesting as an option to discard >>the Fide 50 move rule, in case there are force mates in >>a higher number of moves ? Personally i think that would >>be interesting; and when playing with a comp, an >>interface or the server could anyway decide on the >>50 move drawing ruling; ofcourse the eval >>would be wrong (eg saying mate in 190 or so) but >>when the opponent, not having the 6 man bases, would >>play erroneous moves, you might be lucky anyway, >>arriving at mate within the 50 moves. > >That is still a mate then. And rules could be relaxed for computers because >they do not tire like people do. The rule was formulated so that people would >not demand to play on and on and on while not making any progress. The >computers will know exactly what to do and with an n-man tablebase can play >instantly when the board has only n men on it. > >On the other hand, you might say that if you have battled to the point where the >opponent cannot defeat you within 100 non-reversible moves then you have earned >a draw. > >In order to change the rule, there would have to be some kind of consensus. > >>last stupid question: >>are the 6 man tables now complete ? > >No. A long way to go. > >>any plans in the future for some 7 man tables ? >>:) > >It is inevitable. But they will have to wait until the six man files are >complete, because the larger tables rely upon those tables beneath them. Not in any case. For a pawnless 7 man, you don t need ALL 6 man before. Helmut
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.