Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:21:59 08/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 2000 at 14:41:24, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On August 12, 2000 at 00:06:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 11, 2000 at 23:50:19, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On August 11, 2000 at 13:30:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 11, 2000 at 11:40:26, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 11, 2000 at 08:59:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 11, 2000 at 02:31:00, Yar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 11, 2000 at 01:57:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 11, 2000 at 00:38:18, Yar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This game was played on ICC. Blueflame used crafty v17.9 with all 4-man TB's + >>>>>>>>>KQPKQ + KRPKR according to his fingernotes PII 400Mhz, spacechess Chess Tiger >>>>>>>>>v12.0en PII-350Mhz time control 15-5. Have a look at the blunder made by >>>>>>>>>blueflame in the endgame >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[Event "ICC u 15 5 2000.08.23"] >>>>>>>>>[Site "Internet Chess Club"] >>>>>>>>>[Date "2000.08.23"] >>>>>>>>>[Round "-"] >>>>>>>>>[White "BlueFlame"] >>>>>>>>>[Black "SpaceChess"] >>>>>>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>>>>>[WhiteElo "2542"] >>>>>>>>>[BlackElo "2579"] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 >>>>>>>>>6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 b5 >>>>>>>>>11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. a3 Rb8 14. Bh3 Nc5 15. Rhg1 b4 >>>>>>>>>16. axb4 Rxb4 17. f5 Qb7 18. f6 gxf6 19. gxf6 Bf8 20. b3 a5 >>>>>>>>>21. Qe3 h5 22. Kb1 Bd7 23. e5 a4 24. Na2 Rb6 25. b4 Qe4 >>>>>>>>>26. Rge1 Qxe3 27. Rxe3 Bh6 28. Re2 d5 29. Kb2 Bf8 30. c3 Bh6 >>>>>>>>>31. Ka3 Nb3 32. Nxb3 axb3 33. Kxb3 Bb5 34. Rg2 Bf4 35. Re1 Kd7 >>>>>>>>>36. Kc2 Rc6 37. Rg7 Rf8 38. Rh7 d4 39. Bf1 Bxf1 40. Rxf1 Bxe5 >>>>>>>>>41. Rxh5 Ra8 42. Rxe5 Rxa2+ 43. Kb3 Rxh2 44. cxd4 Rd2 45. Rf4 Rd1 >>>>>>>>>46. Rc5 Rb6 47. Kc2 Ra1 48. d5 exd5 49. Rxd5+ Ke6 50. Rc5 Kd6 >>>>>>>>>51. Rcc4 Rba6 52. Kd3 Rd1+ 53. Ke2 Raa1 54. Rce4 Rab1 55. Kf3 Rh1 >>>>>>>>>56. Re7 Kd5 57. Re2 Rbf1+ 58. Rf2 Ke5 59. Rc4 Rh3+ 60. Kg2 Rxf2+ >>>>>>>>>61. Kxf2 Kxf6 62. b5 Rb3 63. Rc6+ Ke5 64. b6 f5 65. Ke2 Kd5 >>>>>>>>>66. Rh6 Kc5 67. Rf6 Rxb6 68. Rxf5+ Kd4 69. Rf8 Rb3 70. Rh8 Re3+ >>>>>>>>>71. Kf2 Ra3 72. Rg8 Rb3 73. Rh8 Ke4 74. Rg8 Rf3+ 75. Kg2 Rf7 >>>>>>>>>76. Rh8 Rf4 77. Rg8 Ke3 78. Rh8 Rg4+ 79. Kh3 Rg1 80. Rf8 Kd4 >>>>>>>>>81. Rd8+ Ke4 82. Re8+ Kf4 83. Rf8+ Ke3 84. Re8+ Kd3 85. Rd8+ Kc4 >>>>>>>>>86. Rc8+ Kd5 87. Rd8+ Ke6 88. Re8+ Kd7 89. Rf8 Kd6 90. Rd8+ Kc7 >>>>>>>>>91. Rf8 Rg6 92. Rh8 Kd6 93. Rf8 Kd5 94. Rh8 Kd4 95. Rf8 Ra6 >>>>>>>>>96. Rh8 Ra1 97. Rg8 Ke4 98. Re8+ Kf4 99. Rf8+ Ke5 100. Re8+ Kd4 >>>>>>>>>101. Rd8+ Ke3 102. Re8+ Kf3 103. Rf8+ Ke2 104. Re8+ Kd3 105. Rd8+ Kc4 >>>>>>>>>106. Rc8+ Kd5 107. Rd8+ Ke6 108. Re8+ Kd7 109. Rg8 Kd6 110. Rd8+ Ke7 >>>>>>>>>111. Rg8 Kf7 112. Rd8 Rg1 113. Rd7+ Ke6 114. Rd8 Ke5 115. Re8+ Kf4 >>>>>>>>>116. Rf8+ Ke4 117. Re8+ Kf3 118. Rh8 Rh1# 0-1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>without looking on the game but only looking on the moves I see a draw by the 50 >>>>>>>>move rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>White can ask for a draw and stop the clock when it plays 118.Rh8 and claim a >>>>>>>>draw by the 50 move rule. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I guess that Blueflame did not know to ask for a draw by the 50 move rule and >>>>>>>>that this is the reason that it lost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>blueflame had 9+ minutes on his clock >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is just a timing hole in dealing with the chess server. Crafty does this: >>>>>> >>>>>>plays the move that hits the 50-move rule (both sides have now played 50 moves >>>>>>without a pawn push or capture). It then sends the draw claim. But lag >>>>>>prevents the draw claim from arriving at the chess server before the opponent >>>>>>makes a move. >>>>>> >>>>>>In a 50 move rule game, _any_ move is good enough to get the draw, including >>>>>>a move that hangs a rook or leaves you open to a mate in 1. Unfortunately, on >>>>>>a chess server, playing such a move leaves you exposed to the tiny timing hole >>>>>>mentioned above... >>>>>> >>>>>>You have to be sure your move _and_ draw claim arrive before the opponent can >>>>>>play a move that beats you. Since the move and draw claim are sent separately, >>>>>>there is no way to guarantee this. >>>>> >>>>>The rules say that your claim must come first. I do not know how the ICS handle >>>>>this but FIDE's laws are quite sure on this point. >>>>> >>>>>Ref. from Fide: http://handbook.fide.com/ >>>>> >>>>>E.I. Laws of Chess >>>>> >>>>>9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if >>>>> >>>>>a) he writes on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to >>>>>make a move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each >>>>>player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece, or >>>>>b) the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the >>>>>movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Odd Gunnar Malin >>>> >>>> >>>>Chess servers don't work like that. By making a move, you automatically >>>>"press your clock." It the perfect API might be to have a <press> command >>> >>>Right, so the "draw" should be sent before the "[move]" -- if the chess server >>>is programmed properly to accept it, anyway. >>> >>>Dave >> >> >>That won't work. If it isn't a forced draw, then "draw" simply offers the >>opponent a draw, which he can decline. You _must_ make the move to satisfy >>the 50 move rule first, otherwise it will not work properly. >> >>Just a glitch in the API design. And now since everybody is trying to fix it, >>but in different ways, it is still going to be unusable for programs that play >>on various servers. Eventually we need a patch for xboard to tell us which >>server we are on so we know how to properly claim such draws. Which is really >>an ugly solution when you think about how it _ought_ to be solved... on the >>server end, uniformly. > >The FIDE 50-move rule is clearly satisfied after 99 plys without a capture have >occured. The implementations just don't conform. Don't you mean 100 plies here? 50 move requires that 50 moves by _both_ sides must be made without a capture or pawn move. > >Wouldn't it be best if the interface encapsulated the variation in server rules? > I mean, the engine shouldn't have to worry about it (but then again, neither >should the interface. 8^) > >Dave I agree on both points. The _servers_ ought to have a common API. For some reason, this seems to be heresy and it isn't being done. In fact, it is going the other way, apparently following the pre-unix operating system days where each vendor wanted to 'capture' a customer and make it as hard as possible for that customer to go to another vendor. The servers are doing the same thing.
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.