Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:31:17 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 04:28:12, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On October 21, 1998 at 03:14:30, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On October 21, 1998 at 02:27:59, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>[snip] >>>If the final position is not checkmate, and Shredder claimed a win and refused >>>to move, it should have lost the game by time forfeiture. >>> >>>Of course, this presupposes that the operator did not preconfigure Shredder to >>>terminate winning games early when its default is to play until checkmate. >>I would qualify that a bit. If it showed a forced mate in its PV, then game >>over, win for the program that demonstrates mate. > >I do not agree. Why not use the autoplayer to play these forced moves. If it's a >forced mate, then it will not take more than a few seconds/minutes to reach the >mating position, so not much time to be saved. For what else is the autoplayer >good for ? > >After all, we are talking about programs, many of these do have bugs. A forced >mate announcement can be wrong. The mate announcement might be right, but the program might not be able to execute the mate. At the tail end of the game, you get code that is not often executed, and some programs may have bugs. On ICC I had another program allow a 3x repetition in a position where a mate was obviously forced. 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.