Author: Amir Ban
Date: 10:21:56 10/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1998 at 12:36:49, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On October 20, 1998 at 10:08:33, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On October 20, 1998 at 01:16:06, blass uri wrote: >> >> >>> >>>The question is if hiarcs6 claimed a draw with making the last move. >>>If it is not the case it is a bug in hiarcs6(hiarcs6 knew that it was a draw >>>otherwise there was no chance for fritz3 to do a capture only in the 101 ply. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>In auto232 games there is no agreed result, so some confusion about it may >>occur. In the DOS autoplayer, practically the only way to end a game is to stop >>playing, and let the game be terminated by a timeout. This means that when one >>program resigns or claims a draw, the other program only sees a timeout and can >>only guess what happened. >> >>In this case, it's possible that Hiarcs printed on the screen "It's a draw !", >>but continued playing anyway. Another possibility is that both programs realized >>this was a draw, but the tester who looked at the final position did not know >>this and thought Fritz won. >> >>Amir > >Confusion even grows cause some programs themselves decide to terminate games, >when auto232 is used. When some threshold score is reached, they refuse to send >moves to the lpt (or whatever) device. No chance for the tester to continue. I >learned this when I was puzzled about a prematurely (IMO) terminated game which >was lost by Comet and asked for this at SSDF. >In general such option may be useful but it should really be an option. > >Uli This depends: It's perfectly ok to terminate a game if you want to resign, and you are free to resign whenever you want. If you mean that a program refused to continue because it claimed a win, this should not be allowed at any score. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.