Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Clarification given

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.