Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:23:46 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:07:44, Les Fernandez wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 11:52:18, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On January 22, 2003 at 11:29:18, Les Fernandez 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! >>> >>>Rediculous!! Who in the world would agree to terms like that! With a few more >>>rules like this it won't even pay to play the match. What other things does the >>>Kasparov camp demand? Am I not mistaken that all this time Kasparov has had a >>>version of the software to gain insight into its prowess? Although I feel >>>Kasparov should win the match with all these "extra" provisions one would have >>>to ask how can he lose!!!!. >>> >>>Disgraceful! >> >>That is what I thought at the beginning, but when you read it in the context it >>makes a little bit of sense. It is an etiquette rule whose spirit is not to take >>advantage of inherent disadvatages of the the machines and humans. The human >>should not be dragged into an endgame that last too many moves when it is a draw >>and the machine will not lose on time because of the operator. >> >>In the only case that it could be unfair is in some KQPKQ positions, I guess. >>The rest of the tablebases draws should be pretty simple for Kasparov to defend >>without being tired, but it will take them 4 hours to complete if the machine >>decides to go on and on. >> >>It do not think the rules is perfect, but it is not disgraceful. There may be >>other better options or better implementations. > >Hello Miguel > >Perhaps disgraceful was a poor choice of words (over reaction on my part) but I >understand what you are saying regarding the fatigue scenario but after all that >is part of the game is it not? Yes and no. It is part of the game between a human and a human. In that situation, if one player is stubborn enough to drag the game ad infinitum, he also is risking getting tired and screwing up the rest of the tournament/match. That is why you rarely see this, and the guy who is stubborn is not considered very well by his peers. There is always unwritten rules and etiquette in most of the sports. When the computer enters into the equation fatigue cannot be part of the sport anymore, at least when it does not make sense in the board. In other words, ONLY fatigue cannot be part of the game. I am not saying that this is the perfect rule, but this issue should be addressed, IMHO. At the same time, a computer losing on time is ridiculous and that is addressed too. Miguel Since these types of provisions are not >incorporated for human vs human then I beleive it should be no different. ie if >some GM's technique is to tire you out should we just stop the game and say well >there is a guaranteed draw here so no sense in finishing the game?? I don't >think so and it shouldn't be that way against a machine. I believe that as >engines grow in the ability to understand positional and tactical we will see >more an more games with just a handful of pieces getting involved in hitting the >TB's. Just a hunch. > >Thanks, > >Les > >> >>Miguel >> >> >>> >>>Les >>> >>>> >>>>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
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.