Author: Peter Berger
Date: 14:23:30 04/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2001 at 15:00:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 28, 2001 at 12:57:13, Peter Berger wrote: > <snip> >>And again : no commercial chessprogram does it properly ! >> >>Do you read this , Christophe :-) ? > > > >Yes I have read this carefully, and as far as I know my chess program does not >behave incorrectly when it announces draw by repetition or draw by the 50 moves >rule. > >I'm not very concerned by the fact that the program should first write its move >on the scoresheet, and claim a draw without stopping the clock. > >My program either stops the clock and claims the draw, or makes its move, stop >the clock and claims the draw. > >It does not make any difference as long as the draw claim is correct. As far as >I know the arbiter cannot force the players to continue playing if the draw >claim is correct, so it does not matter if the clock as been stopped or not. Please understand that I would be the first one to agree that this is a very minor topic ; most of this is a design question I think . And the point I still can't understand at all is when you have the choice : why not simply implement it following the official rules of chess ? Let's start with the one you are not concerned by : a.) Draw offers The programs I know that _can_ make draw offers are the Chessbase ones ( including your Tiger btw ) as the job is done by the GUI and Shredder 5 ( same design ) . Both simply do it in the wrong way . They always offer draw _instead_ of making a move . It is not necessary to do it this way - it's simply bad design I think . There is _one_ program that does it correctly when playing under WinBoard : Gandalf ; currently I don't remember how Crafty does it . I hope when Tiger learns this it will do it correctly . b.) 3rd repetition/50 moves rule Programs do the strangest things here - a few days ago I observed the program "Der Bringer" - it claimed "draw by repetition" ( so far, so good ) but then it made a move blundering a queen . Again : either you claim draw or you make a move - not both . I agree to most of what you have written . But note - both : the 3rd repetition and the 50 moves rule are _optional_ . You can choose to claim draw _or_ you can choose to play on . Imagine the following situation : Tiger is up two queens but by a miracle the opponent can force a perpetual by chosing a very narrow path to escape . I don't think it makes any sense for Tiger to claim a draw by repetition here - the only option you have to offer is one for the opponent to claim it . Or you have a KRB-KR ending with the bishop up - why should the program claim a draw by the 50 moves rule then ? This would be for the opponent to do . > >The only thing that you can still argue about is the fact that the program makes >its move on the chessboard (it should just write the move in the move list and >not make the move on the board). I would say that it can be viewed as a courtesy >for the opponent (showing the move on the board to make its point more clear?). :-) ; I don't want to argue about anything - I simply wanted to explain my point of view . As those draw rules are optional ( nobody forces you to claim draw ) making the move is the wrong signal IMHO - it shows : " I want to play on !" . I'd prefer if programs did it like you described above . pete > >As my engines never claim a draw in any other situation (yet), I'm not concerned >today by other draw claims. > > > > Christophe >
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.