Author: Ingo Althofer
Date: 00:25:50 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, 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. (i) The operator of Fritz in Bahrain is Mathias Feist. He is a strong club player and has a lot of chess knowledge. For instance, in 1996 he had a national rating of 2090, and in the AEGON 96 tournament he beat Hans Berliner's program Hitech. Mathias Feist is also an experienced correspondence chess player. I can assure you that he knows the fortress motives in RPP-QP. (ii) Independently of the chess strength of the operator rule 8.4.3 gives Kramnik the right simply to claim a "technical draw", and only the program FRITZ itself is allowed to "give" counter arguments. >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? Concerning the RPP-QP example I would accept when Kramnik claimed a draw. But there might be other positions where Kramnik might abuse his rights from rule 8.4.3. The number "ten" in the "last ten moves rule" is simply too small, in my eyes. Some guys here may try to stone me because of the following, but (over-the-board) chess is street fighting: This specific "ten moves" rule also prohibits that a computer program makes progress because of the normal "50 moves drawing" rule. The programs today know the "50 moves" rule. In some endgames they may make many moves without a plan but with a clearly positive evaluation, then realize at move 45 the drawing thread (because of the 50 rule) which forces them to make a pawn move or to beat a piece which in turn leads (maybe in several steps of 45 or 50 moves each) to some winning end. Ingo Althofer.
This page took 0.01 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.