Author: Alastair Scott
Date: 05:15:53 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 08:01:28, Gabor Szots wrote: >If an engine is unable to claim draw on repetition, then it is not a draw if the >opponent plays on. Not a draw even if the same position repeats 10 times. >If the GUI claims the draw, it is as if a spectator would have claimed it, >therefore invalid. The problem with this argument is that it leads to indeterminate results because GUIs might not just "claim"; they might do (or not do) something which materially affects the progress of the game. Suppose program A doesn't know about three-fold repetition, or has a bug which prevents detection, and program B stops immediately it detects a three-fold repetition. What could happen, as a result, would be: A misses the repetition and makes a move; B stops; A sits there, waiting for a move in response; B will never move; (Eventually) A stops because it thinks it has won on time. So what is the eventual result ... ? In this sort of situation it would be a Solomonic judgement by a human arbiter ;) 30 years ago there must have been far more such problems as "the art of chess programming" was not as advanced; I remember, in the early 1980s, programs which were unaware of three-fold repetition, the 50-move rule and underpromotion! What happened then? (I strongly suspect a shrug of the shoulders; unlike now, everything was confined to academia and there was no money involved). Alastair
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.