Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:16:52 04/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2000 at 17:48:47, KarinsDad wrote: >Here are your issues as I read them: > >1) Rules should not be changed such that someone shows up at a tournament and a >last minute change results in the program not being coded correctly. > >I agree with you 100% on this. > >2) It is not desirable to have a separate way for a program to play the game for >computers as opposed to humans. > >Fine. Indicating the type of opponent at game start does not seem like a biggy >to me and in fact, you could have conditional compiled code for the 50 move >stuff so that you run a slightly different version for each, but ok. > >3) Programs should not have the ability to announce a >50 move mate and extend >the 50 move rule since other programs may not have that ability. > >I could easily disagree with this one. A GM cannot announce a >50 move mate >(usually) due to lack of ability. GMs just do not know the endgames to that nth >degree. But, a computer can. So, because a computer is "smarter" (i.e. can >search deeper into the endgame due to having EGTBs), why should a position that >is a forced win be a draw due to a human limitations rule? But, ok, I will drop >it as it doesn't occur that often. But it's not a forced win. It's a draw, according to the 50 move rule. Like it or not, there is a 50 move rule, and it's a rule just like any other rule, e.g., "pawns can only move forward." If you get into a situation where you can't win due to the 50 move rule, then tough luck. You have to play better to win. -Tom
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.