Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:31:10 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:12:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 12:06:37, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On January 22, 2003 at 11:58:05, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: >> >>> >>>Bob, >>> >>>It shows me the abality of GK to negoiate a rule very favorable to him. >>>It is not at all certain that GK could, over the board, be certain of a >>>draw in a known draw position as determined with tablebases with, at least all >>>5 piece endings, and most likely some six piece endings. Now, in those >>>positions the game will end in a draw, which, in my view, is correct. This >>>does not address the situation where DJ sees a tablebase draw in its search and, >>>if it's losing trys to steer the game to that position. >>> >>>I like the rule. I do not see any contest between machine and man where >>>the machine looks up its move in a table, and waits for the human to make >>>a mistake. >> >> >>It is possible the machine could see a tablebase draw which a human would not >>know how to "solve" and thus lose the drawn position. The human would deserve >>the loss. This is the point of the man/machine contest. >> >>If the possibility of a game like this is so remote, then why have the rule in >>the first place? > >Not to have 4 hours of shuffling pieces back and forth. That is more likely than > reaching a position in the 5 EGTBs that is draw and Kasparov does not not how >to defend. AFAIK, the only chance could be in certain KQPKQ. >I would have make an exception in this endgame, in the rest, the rule makes a >lot of sense combined with certain allowances that the computer will have. >It looks like a gentlemen deal. The gentlemen deal takes place at the board with draw offers. This prevents the 4 hour piece shuffling. The rule is not needed for this. The rule is giving Kasparov an out for drawn positions which he does not know how to solve. That is not right, IMO. Matt > >Miguel > > > >> >>It is a bad rule, IMO. >> >>Matt >> >> >>>That the machine has a huge opening book is somewhat similar, >>>but as GK has a tremendous knowledge of openings it seems fair that the >>>machine have a similar knowledge. >>> >>>We know nothing about the opening book for DJ. And, apparently, there are no >>>rules for the opening book. I would like to see a rule that limits DJ's >>>opening book to a set number of moves, like 10-15 moves. As far as we know >>>DJ's book may be all games played by all strong players who have ever played the >>>game through to the final move. Where is the contest if the machine >>>just looks up its move in a table? >>> >>> >>>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.
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.