Author: KarinsDad
Date: 16:27:26 04/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2000 at 19:16:52, Tom Kerrigan wrote: [snip] >> >>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 In my country, we have laws. And the reasons for those laws are usually valid. And the reasons for changing those laws are also usually valid. And I do not say to my government, "Hey, we have always done it this way, so don't you go changing that law, just because the situation may have changed.". In other words, you are correct in that this is the current rule. But who says that the rule HAS to apply forever or that it HAS to apply to computer chess as well? And who says that there cannot be multiple rules, some which apply to tournament 1 and some that apply to tournament 2? This happens all of the time (a TD specifying which rules apply) at USCF tournaments. Learn to be a little flexible. KarinsDad :)
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.