Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:28:14 04/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
It is pointless to argue with you KD, you drag every aspect of this into minutia or non-sequitor. I am arguing from a very practical point of view, as someone who competes in person at live computer chess events. In case anyone is listening, here is a summary of my arguments: 1) I think that the availabilty of 5- and 6-man tables is a ridiculous reason to change the laws of chess as they pertain to computer vs computer play. But if this is to be done, the specific endings that may be excepted need to be stated well in advance of any tournament. It should not be possible to argue that since I show up with a weird 7-man table, everyone should make allowance for me since I still want to win any 300-move mates I might happen to steer for. If I am going to argue that this ending should be excepted, anyone else should be able to argue that they need ample time to handle the ending specifically. Personally, I think this is no fun and generally stupid. I've operated with 5-man tables for several years and I've never felt the need to try to bother my opponent with such esoterica, if I had ever lost a half-point due to the 50-move rule, I would have congratulated my opponent and added the event to my collection of stupid computer chess stories. From the point of view of someone who has the tables, this is all esoterica, but when people who have the tables try to make others change their programs in order to allow for these weird cases, that's more serious. 2) I disagree with the stated idea that one program should be awarded a point in a given position, while another one must take a half-point in the same position, based upon what the author says about how the program plays chess. bruce
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.