Author: Peter Berger
Date: 04:27:23 01/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2002 at 06:31:28, Frank Phillips wrote: >Do you mean no chance to loose or should be no chance of losing, as in >discounting bugs in the program. > >I suppose the only real solution is to play out the game to end; and if someone >loses a drawn position on time, so be it. But this can be tedious as >Gambitmaster may confirm for CCT4 last weekend, when mine entered torture mode >of 50 moves, capture, 50 moves in a completely drawn (logical chess result) >position. > >Frank Confirmed. Last year in Berlin (BELCT1) when I operated Bringer there was a similar situation in the game Bringer-Quark. In late endgame close to tablebases a draw was agreed because with all the information on the screen it was obvious both programs actually understood what was going on. After the game there was a very brief discussion on CCC about how this game could be called a draw. I learned not to agree to a draw in a similar situation again. I believe operators should have no influence on the game at all while it is running. I think it is OK to agree to a draw if even a spectator with say ELO 1300-1400 will understand that draw is the only possible result which was the case for Searcher-Bringer I believe. Good luck for Searcher this weekend, pete
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.