Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:10:31 06/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 1999 at 15:15:18, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 11, 1999 at 13:14:46, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >[snip] >>> >>>I think the FIDE rules indirectly imply that a move must be made (although >>>Miles/Reuben got away with a draw with no moves in 1975), depending on >>>interpretation: "The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during >>>the game. This immediately ends the game". Since this says "during the game", it >>>implies that the game is actually being played (or one move has been made???). >> >>Yes. At www.clubkasparov.ru you can read something by V. Dvorkovich (sp?), an >>International Arbiter, who discusses how he dealt with a recent "GM draw". > >Yes, I had read that article. It implies that the rule (see my other post): > >"An offer at any other time during play is still valid" > >really should read: > >"An offer at any other time during play is invalid" > >This makes more sense. Maybe the FIDE rules on the Internet have bugs in them. > While it is not proper to offer a draw at an inappropriate moment, draw offers may not be retracted. The draw was still offered, even if it was done by ignoring the proper conduct. >[snip] >>>If at best black has a forced draw after Ng1, then Ng8 could lead to a fast draw >>>as you claim. However, you also stated that maybe minimum draws are not >>>necessarily best (your opponent has less of a chance of making a mistake). A >>>more complicated or slower draw may be best. So, regardless of whether Ng1 leads >>>to a win for black or a draw for black, Ng1 should not be moved since it lowers >>>the chances of your opponent making a mistake (by trying to minimize the number >>>of moves of a draw AND by giving your opponent two tempi). Some different >>>drawing move that does not lead to a possible win for black or leads to a slower >>>or more complicated draw should be made. >> >>Correct, Ng1 is not a good move when playing fallible opponents. This does not >>refute its brilliance under the original conditions. <grin> > >If 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 is a forced win for black, it would refute the brilliance >of Ng1 under the original conditions. <grin> AFAIR the original conditions of my claim included that the position after 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 is a draw. If they didn't, they were supposed to, and sorry for the inconvenience. :-) >> >>>KarinsDad :) >>> >>>PS. I think I got you with my logic this time Dave, but I'm sure you'll think >>>of a way to squirm out of it. :) >> >>Squirm. >> >>>PSS. I guess you have convinced me that the minimal draw move may not be best >>>(with the caveat that it may be best in time pressure). >> >>That was my objective. Does this mean that I got you with my logic? :-) > >For falliable opponents you did. Of course, that was not the original >discussion. > >The minimal draw move is definitely not best against fallible opponents since >the basic definition of a fallible opponent is one who will eventually lose >against a perfect program, so why play for a draw when you can win. However, the >definition of fallible could include a "perfect" program with a few minor bugs, >so a perfect program should still play for a win and if the imperfect opponent >is good enough to find a line that gives a draw, at least the perfect program >drew. It would never (even against a fallible opponent) play a move that could >lead to a loss (possible Ng1). > >Against infallible opponents, the minimal forced draw move is perfectly fine. >But since that was what we were originally talking about, it seems okay that I >thought that minimal forced draws could be the only ones in the tablebase. > >However, I doubt you could ever convince me that 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 ever leads to >a forced drawn position with perfect play by both sides. So, although I conceed >your point for falliable opponents, I think your example is still poor for >infalliable ones. Even if a perfect program knew that it's opponent was perfect, >it would still make moves that ONLY lead to draws or wins and I doubt that Ng1 >only leads to draws or wins (with perfect play). :) Keep doubting. :-) Chess has a lot of slack in it. You can make a mistake and still save the game. I have read that it takes two or three "GM-level" errors for a position to become lost. (I think that) you think GMs play substantially less than perfect, because this is implied by the belief that if two perfect players could start from a position that GMs rate as "slight edge for white", the result would be a win for white. I do not share this belief. (Though perhaps I am overstating your belief... feel free to clarify. :-) >KarinsDad :) Dave
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.