Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:57:59 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 17:07:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 16:05:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>The rule was changed back because strong chess players didn't like it. The big >>problem was KRB vs KR, which turns out to have an optimax of more than 50 moves. >> The players rebelled against the idea of playing this out further, when the >>odds of actually starting in one of the > 50-move positions are low. In short, >>the odds that you'd really "need" 50 moves are much lower than the odds that >>you'd get into a more normal variant of this ending and have to suffer for twice >>as long, resulting in degraded play in later rounds of your tournament, for no >>real reason. >> >>I think it makes perfect sense to keep the rule the way it is, rather than >>allowing for freakish cases invented by computers. Let the humans play the game >>in a manner that is most pleasant for them. > >I agree for humans. The 50-move rule should apply to them, every time. >However, I think that if a computer is playing and announces mate from the TBs, >the game should be over immediately, even if it's mate in 573 (We probably don't >want to play that out anyway.), and even if the 50-move rule would interfere in >the meantime. The 50 move rule was designed for the comfort of humans. Time controls were designed for the comfort of humans. Chess rules should be devised for human/human, human/computer, and computer/computer games. Some of the rules should apply to all types of chess whereas some of the rules should apply to the types of opponents playing. For example, humans rarely have a power failure. Humans are not allowed to make a record of anything other than times and moves. Computers can make a record of anything they like. Humans do not need someone else to "correct" the move on the system if there was an interface bug which resulted in the wrong move being given or received by a computer. Computers need this. These are just a few examples which indicate that we should have different rules for different types of opponents. IMO. KarinsDad :) PS. However, if a computer announces mate in 573, it should have to prove it and should have to play unless it's opponent resigns. The TB code or the TBs could have a bug, so it's only mate if it is mate. IMO.
This page took 0.01 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.