Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 04:04:49 01/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2003 at 06:51:01, Frank Phillips wrote: >Rules (extract): > >The machine must display its evaluation. > >Whenever the machine displays an evaluation in favour of the human player then >the game shall be declared a win for the human player. What if Kasparov wins a piece and DJ beta displays a negative score during the next 18 moves, will they stop the match and declare Kasparov the winner; but DJ later on could see a forcing mate with a piece down in the 19th or 24th move ? Pichard >Whenever the machine displays an evaluation equivalent to a draw score then of >the human player may chose the draw or play on and chose the draw at any future >move. > >Should the machine display a winning value in favour of itself then all energy >supplies must be isolated from the parts of the machine involved in playing >chess, but the computer clock must continue to record the time used by the >computer. > >In the above situation, should the human's clock fall before that of the >computer, then the game shall be declared a draw, unless the human can cause >enough fuss so that enough people believe (ie the human player) that the human >would have won should the game have continued when the human shall be judged to >be the winner. > >Should the machine at any time play a move that in the opinion of the human was >unexpected and uncharacteristic of a machine, then the machine shall immediately >forfit that game. > >In the event that the human does not win the match, then the human shall not be >declared the loser and the match declared void. Possible justifications for >this include, the human was tired, someone else played the moves - not the >computer, the rules where obviously in the machine's favour... The human will >need to provide any proof to substantiate these claims; handwaving, vauge >generalisation,opinion polls and the opinions of those who know little, or >preferrably nothing, computer chess shall be sufficient. > >Footnote: Should the human beat the machine then this will prove conculsively >that Deep Blue cheated in the historic match in 19xx. Should the machine win, >then this will prove that it is better than Deep Blue in 19xxx, since obviously > Deep Blue cheated in that match to beat the human and would otherwise have >lost. > > >Simply could not resist. Ex champ versus hamstrung computer. I remember the days >when they would have taken on a bunch of them in a simul. How things change. >As far as I can tell the difference in prize money for human win or loss is >minimal. So what is the issue. > >Frank
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.