Author: Maurizio De Leo
Date: 08:45:26 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 08:52:39, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >>When I read it I tought it as a "kindness" to the human player. >>It is clear that the draw agreement can be coded inside the program : for >>example "accept only if down 0.x pawn or more for more than y moves". This >>feature is implemented in every commercial program, also Junior 7. > >>But we have seen in game 4 that computers can be dumb in understanding dead >>draw, and can play them on for dozeens of moves, thinking to be ahead. >>From this the idea of delegating the decision to the human. > >You only points on the error I was referering to, and why they didn't thrust >the engine. >If you have to play 50 moves with black in an endgame with f.ex. wrong bishop >color. (white pawn on h3, black pawn on h4 and h5, white have a 'white' bishop >and you holding h8 with your king). Isn't the next stop for the engine the >recycle bin. I don't know where the next stop for the engine is (after all it can beat me with the queen advantage) but I'm sure that computers will play till the 50 move rule a LOT of endings that we know as draw for sure. Look at the 4th game [D 6k1/1r3pp1/1Pr4p/3R4/8/5P1P/6P1/1R4K1 w - - ] From this position Junior played 12 more moves and I'm sure it would have played 38 more if it wasn't stopped by the operator. >>So the "team" (including a Gm) decides, checking of course what the real player >>thinks (this means "what's junior score"). >>It is clearly stated in the rules that they couldn't offer draw if Junior >>evaluation wasn't near zero. > >The rule you quoted wasn't this. >In your quote the operator could decide the draw/resign with looking at the >score or consulting the team first. Nothing there that the team had to look at >the score. How else could game 4 be a draw? I wrote they couldn't OFFER draw without near-zero evaluation, not they couldn't ACCEPT draw. I thought I quoted this, but the rules are long and maybe it slipped in my copy and paste. "d. The machine operator has discretion in offering draws, provided the machine is showing draw or near-draw evaluations or displaying repetition lines. The machine operator will not offer a draw if such conditions are not met, but may accept a draw if offered by the human player." Anyway, the complete rules are at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=739 >This is analyzing and not viewing the screen. And what more is, they thought >Junior would 'blunder' in the next few moves so they was afraid to lose because >of this analysing. > >Beside from this. The team was part of the game, reported to the arbiter before >game start, so they can't be compared with spectators. (Wonder if this backup >machine was reported as a team member :) ) Maybe the backup machine was reported to the arbiter as taking part in the decision process. After all there isn't any quote about "not using computers while deciding a draw". Anyway I don't think you can force a rule that forbid the team members to analyze the position. Maybe there will be a rule forbidding computer Maurizio
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.