Author: Shep
Date: 04:21:54 07/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1999 at 04:10:17, Harald Faber wrote:
>>But given their game scores so far, it is highly unlikely CM6 or CST will end up
>>on #1...
>
>This is your criteria?? No (suposed!) chance for getting no.1 so games are
>stopped earlier?
Sometimes, yes. The last time we had this discussion was on last year's SC in
the game Rebel vs. Virtual. After the tourney, I decided it was not worth
resuming the match (adjudicated a draw) since Rebel wouldn't have changed its
position and Virtual would only have gotten from #10 to #9 in case of a win.
>>Just like I could play R vs. R or RR vs. RR until the 50-move rule kicks in.
>>But that's not how I evaluate games.
>
>You are exaggerating now. I didn't mean to play on R-vs-R.
I was just trying to show you what your argument "well, one program could still
blunder away a drawn ending" could lead to.
>>I interpret successive displays of "+0,00" as the program's way of offering a
>>draw.
>
>Maybe they will play a repitition but since there is none in sight, why not make
>some more moves?
I came up with this rule when programs didn't have an "offer draw" possibility.
Maybe it is outdated; I will ponder your arguments for future tournaments.
Even more so since my next tournament will be all-amateur, where showing "+3" is
not a guarantee for being able to win... :)
But changing the rules while a tournament is running is a no-no for me.
>>Of course you can disagree with that, but these are the rules.
>
>OK, this is your tournament.
I just have to "optimize" some decisions because I cannot play until after
midnight, and some programs don't allow me to save the game including the clock
settings, and some wreak havoc if you try to adjust the clocks (Rebel is a good
example for both).
>>I have been using the draw rule as well as the win rule ("A game is won if both
>>sides agree that one side is up by +3 or more for 3 moves in a row, or by +5 or
>>more in the endgame") successfully for years and am quite happy with it. :)
>
>Then you missed some games where such games were NOT won.
Yes, but as they always say, that is "not statistically significant". :)
I am already gradually changing this rule because of the improved endgame
performance of most programs and the endgame tablebase issue.
Actually, I _have_ played on in some of these cases and have only seen one game
where Rebel was up +3 against Genius and did not win (but this was a rapid
game).
>>Besides, don't forget these are _manually played_ games! It gets really boring
>>for me to watch them play on when both I and the programs know that nothing new
>>is going to happen.
>>Shep
>
>I know that it is boring and annoying but you CAN get wrong results when
>stopping games when they have almost just begun...
Agreed. The problem is finding a good compromise. But I will try. :)
---
Shep
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.