Author: blass uri
Date: 00:19:48 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 00:07:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 22:56:56, Adrien Regimbald wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>>Your interpretation is that rule is _wrong_. The rule you quoted was intended >>>to handle one case: I have a King rook and pawn and a lot of time. You >>>have a king and rook and practically no time. The position is dead drawn, >>>so I just make moves trying to run you out of time. You can invoke the above >>>rule, ask an arbiter and have the game declared drawn. >> >> >>The rule I quoted is intended to be used as it is written. IE - if you are not >>making a reasonable effort to win the game, or it is not possible for you to win >>the game with reasonable play. The situation that Tiviakov was in does fit this >>situation - Fritz was not making any attempt in that game to win - Fritz was >>simply trying to hold on. > >THis shows you know nothing about how a program plays chess. The program >_always_ is trying to win. Even when down in material. It is never just >"trying to hold on". > >The rule has several requirements before it can be used. One is "clearly >winning". In the final position, neither side is "clearly winning". So it >doesn't apply at all. > >> >> >>>You can _not_ invoke the above rule just because you have more material than >>>I do, but hardly any time. It doesn't work that way. The above rule prevents >> >> >>Actually, you can. If you are <= 2 minutes on the clock, you may stop the clock >>and call the arbiter over. The arbiter then decides whether to accept your >>claim or not. (yes, there may be a penalty if your claim was unjustified) >> > >And in this case, the arbiter would say "you are not clearly winning, your >opponent has plenty of material to beat you if you make any sort of mistake. >I am going to deduct 5 minutes from your clock and the game continues. Oops. >You are out of time. I declare the game over. You lose." > > > > > >> >>>my trying to simply run you out of time. It doesn't establish any threshold >>>that says "if the side running out of time has two or more extra pawns, he >>>may claim a draw." The rule simply says that the side with more time _must_ >>>be trying to make progress to win, and not just be shuffling a piece waiting >>>on the opponent's flag to fall. If I can prove I have pushed a pawn every 10 >>>moves, that is _clearly_ making progress. >> >> >>Fritz was simply trying to run Tiviakov out of time. Fritz didn't have even a >>remote chance of winning that game by any means other than flagging. Fritz was >>not making any efforts to win the game - it was simply trying to cling on and >>responding to threats. > >what are you basing this on? I have seen my program win _many_ games when >the evaluation was as low as -6.0. I don't consider -2 against a human as >anything serious enough to think about resigning over. -2.0 is not lost but I think that GM's can at least draw in the final position of the game in 2 minutes/game. There are cases when GM can lose position even when they have 6 pawns advnantage but it is not the case. I think that the only way that the GM can blunder is if he wants a win and if you try to win the game there is more room for errors. > > > >> >>Pushing a pawn every 10 moves is not a clear sign of progress. Pushing a pawn >>can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the position. If things were as you >>would have it, you could be in a dead lost position, but your opponent has very >>little time left, and you can just push a pawn forward only to have it taken by >>your opponent and somehow call that progress. > > >wrong answer. Pushing a pawn _is_ progress. Because the move can't be undone. >Hence the 50 move rule (this was why it was implemented as it was.) If I >push a pawn enough, I run out of pushes. Then I either promote one or I stop >making progress and the rule kicks in. But not in this position. > > > > >> >>Please note that I didn't at any point in time say that "2 pawns up and down on >>time == draw". I simply believe that in the position where the operator offered >>a draw Tiviakov would have a very strong case for a draw, and didn't need the >>draw offer. > >He had _no_ case for a draw claim. Even claiming a draw there would be an >instant loss because the arbiter would have to penalize his clock time. And >any penalty would result in a time loss. > > > >> >> >>>Yes he did. He can't claim a draw just because he is a pawn up and about to >>>lose on time. That isn't what the rule says. It says the side with more time >>>must not be trying to make any progress, before the rule can be used. >> >> >>You keep putting words in my mouth! I didn't say that Tiviakov can just say >>"I'm up a pawn or two and down on time, therefore I have a draw". I'm saying >>that he may claim a draw, and would most likely get it. The justification for >>this is simple - Fritz was making no attempt to win the game on the board, and >>didn't have any realistic chance.. > > >I just got an email reply from an international arbiter I have known for 20+ >years. His response was the same as mine. I think that the decision may be dependent on the arbiter. This draw offer would be instantly >rejected and the player would be penalized for stopping the clock to make the >claim. He said the criteria must be "easily won" by the side with no time left, >and a single pawn would not be nearly enough unless it was a simple KP vs K that >was known to be a draw. And even then he would make the player demonstrate for >a few moves that he knew how to draw it. or win it if he could, in order to >claim the draw. I did not have to demonstrate that I know the way to draw the game in the KB vs KNP endgame. It is a draw but the claim that it is a draw by tablebases is not enough to accept a draw claim and I know that in KR vs KRB this claim will not be accepted by the side without the B even if tablebases say that it is a draw because there is a real practical chance for mistakes. The rules are not clear and the decision may be dependent on the arbiter. Uri
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.