Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 19:44:39 04/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2000 at 19:27:26, KarinsDad wrote: >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.". Of course. But HAS the situation changed? Isn't it possible for a human to reach a "won" endgame and still draw due to the 50-move rule? What if a human says, "I know this endgame perfectly and I can win it in 51 moves." Why should a TD allow a computer to play out the game and not a human? I think it would make more sense if you were arguing for an end to the 50 move rule, and not for inequality in the rules. -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.