Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:08:07 10/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 1998 at 15:37:29, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >In Jakarta we (Bruce and I) were watching a game between two programs in which >an endgame K+minor vs. K+minor and no pawns on either side occured. One program >refused to move and claimed a draw, sorry, but I can't remember any more >details. There was some discussion what to do, but finally the game was declared >a draw, because both programmers were happy with that. > >After that we were discussing if that's according to the chess rules, which >means if the game should have been won by the other side or not. Please note >that the game is of course a draw morally, but just let's stick to the rules. We >asked some guys what they would have done and almost everybody said, yeah, >that's a draw. But one programmer, a long member of the computer chess society >said (I know his name, but I won't tell you): "According to the rules the game >is lost for the side who refused to move and I would definitly claim a win in >this situation!" I think you had too much Australian beer there :-) The situation was a hypothetical one it was from a game between mine and Dark Thought, which had already been agreed to as a draw. After the game I got to wondering about this same issue. I know mine would play on with a pair of minors on the board, but I didn't know if Dark Thought would. I asked Markus and he said it would play on as well. So I didn't blow a sleazy half-point, which I probably wouldn't have taken. Had I had the opportunity to take this point, and had I taken it, this would have put us into a tie for first, everything else being equal. >So, what would you do? What is according to the rules? What is right? > >Imagine: A plays B in the last round of the WCCC. The winner is champion, a draw >means B wins it. Now B refuses to play in the above described situation. If you >are A, would you claim the win? If you do not but you could have done so because >the rules are on your side, are you a hero or an idiot? Please think carefully >and really try to imagine that it's you who is in this situation! > >Maybe this is a good question for the next opinion poll :-) It is a very interesting question. There are lots of chess ethics questions, and you get even more in computer chess, and the degree of blood-thirstiness on the part of the programmers varies widely, so the questions are even more complex. I think that what I would do in this case is claim ignorance of the laws of chess, ask the arbiter to make a decision, and hope the arbiter made a decision that sounded sensible, and tried to keep my mouth shut if it did. It is important that this kind of thing get settled properly. People go a long way to get to these things, and many people take the games very seriously. Things should be settled according to the rules, because even if you don't take the game seriously, and your opponent doesn't take the game seriously, someone else might take their own position in the standings seriously, and this could be affected by any particular game, not just because of gross effects in the placings, but because even games between non-contending programs can have an effect on Bukholz points, which means that who is champion can be decided on the basis of a game between the two last-place programs. bruce
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.