Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Clarification given

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 00:23:32 10/17/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 17, 2002 at 01:58:54, martin fierz wrote:

>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

I think that the rule is stupid

It is possible that a program has a winning advantage but needs to sacrifice to
win and it is going to do no progress in 40 moves and only later do progress
because it does not want a draw by the 50 move rule.

It is more logical to decide that kramnik may claim a theoretical draw but if
analysis proves that it is not a draw then kramnik is going to get a loss and
not a draw.

Uri



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.