Author: Gabor Szots
Date: 05:33:12 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 08:15:53, Alastair Scott wrote: >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. Easy, as long as program B claims draw (with or without making a move with which the repetition is complete). If it is really a repetition, the game is drawn whatever irregularities happen thereafter. > >What could happen, as a result, would be: > >A misses the repetition and makes a move; > >B stops; Has already done so. > >A sits there, waiting for a move in response; > >B will never move; > >(Eventually) A stops because it thinks it has won on time. Engine A may think so but not the arbiter. > >So what is the eventual result ... ? In this sort of situation it would be a >Solomonic judgement by a human arbiter ;) No need to be Solomonic. B won. Cheers, Gábor
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.