Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 15:08:50 10/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 1998 at 17:56:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 11, 1998 at 15:37:29, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > >>On October 11, 1998 at 13:55:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 11, 1998 at 10:41:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I've answered this a dozen times. I score this as draw, *period*. When I lose >>>>a game because of this, or draw a won game because of this, I might make the >>>>change. As it is, it is accurate to call KB vs KB a draw in 99.99999999999999 >>>>percent of the games... that's accurate enough. To pick up that last >>>>quadrillionth of one percent would wreck the rest as I certainly don't want to >>>>trade into (say) a KNN vs KN when I was in a KNNPP vs KNPP. That's the purpose >>>>for this evaluation... to avoid trading into draws when you have winning chances >>>>in the game... >>> >>>You could safely return 0.00 in the tip nodes. Returning 0.00 in an interior >>>node is not strictly correct. >>> >>>Admittedly, you'd search a lot of dumb nodes in low material minor piece >>>situations, unless you had the KB vs KN table (or whatever), in which case you >>>could probe this and safely return the exact value. >>> >>>None of this is a big deal, until you get a user who wants to explore the >>>frontier cases just to see what will happen, then you get a post like, "Crafty >>>can't find this mate, hahaha". >>> >>>bruce >> >>There might be another point: >> >>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!" >> >>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 :-) >> >>Stefan > > >in my case, crafty continues playing, but returns a draw score for each >root move... > >Won't quit, will offer draws, will accept draws, but will also keep right on >playing... > >I'd have to check the rules of chess... because "insufficient material to >force mate" is defined... and it might be legit to end the game there. If >not, I'd have flagged the program that wouldn't play on... I think the laws of chess do not require mate to be forced, only to be possible. That means that if I have not enough material to mate my opponent, but I could mate him if he helped me by making all the moves I wanted him to make so as to let me win, then there is no draw by insufficient material. However, in a "sudden death" type quickplay finish, it is possible to claim a draw when mate cannot be forced when you get down to your last two minutes on the clock. Best wishes, Roberto
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.