Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:14:20 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 11:50:37, Matthew Hull wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 11:43:22, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On January 22, 2003 at 11:06:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2003 at 05:12:52, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >>> >>>>An important rule went unnoticed here. >>>> >>>>The program can use the tablebase, but the game is declared draw when the >>>>computer hits a tblbase draw! >>>> >>>>Not a trivial statement: imagine Kasparov gets into a position where he is in >>>>disadvatage, he can try to enter in an endgame he knows to be drawn even not >>>>knowing how to play it. >>>> >>>>A sort of compensation for the fact Deep Junior has the TB's. >>>> >>>>regards >>>>Franz >>> >>> >>>That is yet another example of the stupidest rule anyone could come up with. >> >>Sounds reasonable to me. >>Imagine Junior shuffling round for 49 moves in tables trying to make Kaspy make >>a mistake, pretty lame too. > >In the case of obvious draws, this would not happen, so your statement does not >apply. It doesn't have to be obvious, could be KRNKR. Anyway you never know, nothing wrong with making a rule about it. Get it down on paper so they don't break any oral gentleman agreements. >But what if the computer sees the draw, but Kasparov does not know for >sure? In this situation, would it not be a bad rule? I think so very much. My opinion is the game is over when the program hits table bases, from there on it can't lose a non-lost position. Only reason to continue would be to wait for Kaspy to make a mistake, that is lame IMO. I don't really see how Junior could take the credit for such a win anyway if it was _only_ due to the tables. -S. >Matt > >> >>-S.
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.