Author: guy haworth
Date: 06:47:32 04/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
Bruce,
I certainly have some sympathy for what you say.
I agree that the rules should be the same for both players, that there should
not be a rule for 'an EGTB owner' and another for 'someone who does not have the
EGTB'. I agree that you should not be able to turn up with a new EGTB just
before a tournament and get the rules changed, thus surprising your opponents.
Basically, if a k-move rule is in force, computers must take that into account.
My ICGA J paper (about to appear) covers this.
A) it proposes SM* (and similar) as strategies, i.e.
"minimise DTM subject to not elongating the current phase beyond k moves"
B) it argues for a DTR ("Depth By the Rule") metric. Against this metric, a
computer would minimise the 'k' of 'k-move rule' that it needs to avoid a
draw-claim.
Frankly, it would be surprising to see a human without EGTBs holding out against
a computer with EGTBs. Even in KRNKNN, there is amply opportunity for the
defender to 'lose depth' by the shedload in the early stages of a deep position.
However, it is worth exploring the theory of 'constrained optimisation' and
I've taken a first step in this direction.
Guy
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.