Author: martin fierz
Date: 22:58:54 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 01:14:14, Ingo Althofer wrote: >However, here comes a new argument why Kramnik would have >had almost 100 percent practical drawing chances in Bahrain: > >It seems that Fritz and also many other chess programs do >not understand the character of the position. [snip] i'm sure you are right about this. in addition to the lines you give, you could also say that probably all programs would be very happy to let white attack the b-pawn with both rooks, defend it with the knight, and after RxP NxR RxN think they are winning in the resulting drawn RPP-QP ending. however, i think that your criticism of the rule 8.4.3. is wrong: >8.4 Draw Offers > 1... > 2... > 3.If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, > he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is > making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop > the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, > and theOpertor is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz > can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress > has been made. for example, the RPP-QP ending is a clear draw, and kramnik must be allowed to claim it. fritz will not understand it is a draw (not until 7-man-tablebases anyway...), and perhaps it's operator will not understand it either. for such cases, this kind of rule is necessary. i'm not sure how "progress" is measured in this context, is it e.g. a change of the evaluation or could it also be pushing a pawn a square further - even though the evaluation stayed the same? aloha martin
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.