Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:15:33 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 22:35:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 21:17:53, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On April 04, 2000 at 21:01:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On April 04, 2000 at 18:57:59, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Why should it get the opportunity to prove it, if it takes 14 hours to do it, >>>requires an exception to FIDE rules to do it, and requires that I modify *my* >>>program so that it will allow the game to continue after it is over according to >>>FIDE rules? >>> >>>bruce >> >>Why should it take 14 hours? In a G60 game, it would have less than an hour (of >>it's time) to prove it. Just because it has a forced mate does not mean that it >>gets to go over the time limit. > >G/60 is not the shortest time control played. So what is your point? How many 14 hour games are you aware of outside of correspondence chess? The 50 move rule is a bogus rule anyway. The reason it is bogus is that the Fischer time controls are bogus. With standard time controls, one side wins, or both sides draw. Simple. No need for a 50 move rule. It was added due to the desires of GMs to not have to sit around in drawish, but not guaranteed draw positions, in order to have yet another GM draw. Bogus. If there were no 50 move rule and no Fischer time controls, then the game would be SIMPLE to manage. > >>The FIDE rules were created with human adjournments, and other human >>considerations in mind. >> >>Why should a computer be allowed to write anything to the hard disk other than >>actual move made and actual time used? What is all this score stuff and lines >>stuff? >> >>Humans are not allowed that privilege. >> >>Why should a computer be allowed EGTBs in the first place? > >Personally I think that Nalimov should be allowed to designate one program as >"his", at which point he'd become a co-author of that program, and nobody could >use the tables in official competition except that program. And what about the non-Nalimov EBTBs. Someone had a set before him. > >I don't see why everyone should be allowed to use the same endgame tables just >because they are available. Or the same OS. Or the same compiler. Sounds like sour grapes to me Bruce. > >The reason they are legal is that they are part of a chess playing system >running on a computer. You can argue about whether any aspect of the system is >legal, or whether a bumble bee can really fly, or how many angels can dance on >the head of a pin, if you wish, but I won't join you. Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was arguing. You responded to me about some 14 hour tripe in the endgame which was totally illogical and nonsensical. I responded with some differences between programs and humans. > >>Humans are not allowed to use a piece of endgame reference material. >> >>Why should a computer be allowed a learning function during a game? >> >>Humans are not allowed during the game to write down any learned information. >> >> >>The bottom line is that computers and people are DIFFERENT. Hence, the rules >>should take that into account. > >Yes, and in this case it is being proposed that the rules change based upon the >capabilities of my opponent, and what is legal for one opponent is not legal for >the other. That is unfair. Of course it is unfair. Now you are understanding. Computers have certain unfair advantages (perfect opening and endgame play) which people may or may not (and usually do not) have. Computers also have GREAT time management. Computers also can make 50 moves in 20 seconds if it is required since they do not have to punch a clock with the same hand. These are all advantages which are not offset by advantages that humans have. They are not offset by: 1) If the power goes out or the computer crashes, it has an operator to assist. Why? Blindfold players do not have an operator to assist. 2) If there is a bug and the program misunderstands which move was made, it can be corrected by the operator (is there a number of times limit on this?). 3) Why are computers allowed to use more information than they can store in memory? Why can they use any database of any size with any information in it? Humans are not allowed to use databases. The point is that there is not an ATTEMPT to make the computers abide by ALL of the rules of FIDE. They are allowed to bend and break the rules, probably since the tournament directors cannot be sure what is and is not being done by the computer. Nor is there an attempt to place rules for computers into the FIDE rules. Hence, we tend to blow off any of the rules which are human-centric for programs and only make sure that the computers abide by the "how to play the game" rules. > >My point is that while it is true that endgame tables are something that >programs can and do use, their use shouldn't be forced -- there is no reason >that entries that make use of them should be given chances to win the game that >aren't also accorded to entries that don't have them. > >Chess is played according to the rules of a world governing body. As much as is >possible, computer chess should be played by the same rules. The differences >between computers and humans are not so severe that different rules are >*required*. Why not? Let's list the FIDE rules often broken by computers: 6.14. Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the board, the moves and the number of moves played, and clocks which show also the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall. However, the player may not make a claim based on anything shown in this manner. 8.1. In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition. 12.2. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard. The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offer of a draw, and matters relating to a claim. Let's list the FIDE rules bent by computers: 4.1. Each move must be made with one hand only. 6.1. Chess clock means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that only one of them can run at one time. 6.4. The arbiter decides where the chess clock is placed. Let's list some of the FIDE rules that can be accidentally violated by humans, but not by computers. Hence, computers have the advantage. 4.2. Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying j'adoube), the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares. 4.3. Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the board (a) one or more pieces of the same colour, he must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured; or (b) one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent's piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. In the absence of other evidence the player's own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent's. 4.4. (a) If a player deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3. (b) If a player, intending to castle touches the king or king and rook at the same time, and castling on that side is illegal, the player must choose either to castle on the other side, provided that castling on that side is legal, or to move his king. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move. 4.5. If none of the pieces touched can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move. 4.6. If the opponent violates Article 4.3 or 4.4 the player cannot claim this after he himself deliberately touches a piece. 4.7. When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to be made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled. 6.7. (a) During the game each player, having made his move on the board, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the made move ends the game. (See Articles 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) The time between making the move on the board and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. (b) A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is forbidden to keep the finger on the button or to 'hover' over it. (c) The players must handle the chess clock properly. It is forbidden to punch it forcefully, to pick it up or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 13.4. 7.1. (a) If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game played. (b) If during a game it is found that the only error is that the board has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game continues but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed board. 7.2. If a game has begun with colours reversed then it shall continue, unless the arbiter rules otherwise. 7.3. If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary the opponent has the right to restart the player's clock without making a move in order to make sure the player re-establishes the correct position on his own time. 7.4. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been made, or that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be identified the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13 and, in the case of an illegal move, Article 5.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue. > >The fact that there are a lot of users of the Nalimov tables is just tough >tooties for them. I don't think that the fact that lots of people have taken >advantage of "perfect play for free" in endgames should affect the rules of the >game as it is currently played between computers. I should not have to change >my program so that it no longer conforms to FIDE rules unless there is a >compelling reason, Does your program conform to all FIDE rules now? KarinsDad :) and "It would be inelegant and/or difficult to make the >Nalimov tables conform to FIDE rules", is a ridiculous reason, and it's >completely crazy to even think of allowing this reason to affect the rules used >by in ICCA events. > >No offense is intended to Nalimov, by the way. > >bruce > >>Either that or both side should have the same restrictions. For example, EGTBs >>should be disallowed when computers play according to FIDE rules. And, of >>course, computers should not have an operator. Humans do not use an external >>operator. The computer should be started up and left to it's own devices. >> >>You should not be allowed to have your cake and eat it too to the disadvantage >>of other players. Computers have that advantage. >> >>KarinsDad :)
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.