Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 04:16:21 01/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2003 at 07:04:49, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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 28 moves, will they stop the match and declare Kasparov the winner; but DJ >later on could see a forcing mate with a piece down way after the 28th 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.