Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:08:17 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 13:52:23, José Carlos wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 13:37:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 11:22:21, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 11:13:56, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 10:50:23, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>>If the bare engine had been playing he would have had to add a few things the >>>>>GUI normally takes care of. >>>>>For UCI engines it is expected that the GUI handles certain (trivial) things. >>>> >>>>claiming a draw on 3-fold repetition is *not* a trivial thing. there are >>>>different possible cases: >>>> >>>>1) if your opponent avoids it, he loses >>>>2) if your opponent avoids it, he wins >>>> >>>>in case 2) you should of course claim the draw, because perhaps he will notice >>>>he could avoid it. in case 1) however, you can safely repeat the moves, and not >>>>claim the draw. it is *not* mandatory to claim a draw on the 3rd repetition. so >>>>you should basically not claim it if you might win if your opponent avoids the >>>>draw. >>>> >>>>how do you expect a GUI to make the right decision? imagine the following >>>>absurdity: jonny is running without GUI and happily repeats moves against >>>>shredder, and does not claim the draw because the engine doesn't know about it. >>>>shredder has a bug and allows a 3-fold repetition but will deviate before the >>>>fourth repetition. now shredders GUI stops shredder from moving, and says "i >>>>claim a draw with my move XY because of 3fold repetition" - this would have been >>>>hilarious for everybody except SMK :-) >>>> >>>>since 3fold repetition is something you claim or don't claim based on the >>>>current position, it is clearly something the GUI shouldn't be doing! >>>> >>>>cheers >>>> martin >>> >>> I think it would be much easyer if some rules where modified specifically for >>>computer chess, particularly those where some decision "off the board" must be >>>made. For example, if 3-fold repetition is _always_ a draw in computer chess, >>>then the GUI can't do anything at all; either the engine enters the position for >>>the third time or not: the engine's decision. >>> Same for other draw rules. >>> >>> José C. >> >> >>I don't understand the controversy at all, myself. IE the program said >>"this is a 3-fold repetition". The operator overruled it and played on. >>What if the program had gone into a deep think and was going to overstep >>the time control on the last move? Can the operator hit the "move now" >>key to prevent that? Suppose the program is about to make a move that >>is not good. Can the operator hit the "take more time" key? >> >>The answer to all of the above is "no". We've seen many games lost due to >>poor time management. But that is part of the computer chess player and the >>human is out of the loop. Ditto for whether you relay a draw claim from >>the computer, or any other decision. If the computer displays "Crap" the >>operator had better hit the potty _right now_. :) > > I agree :) > My point is that we could make things easier (maybe) if some rules that in >human chess depend on whether the player wants to claim or not, were made fixed, >for example "3-fold repetition is _always_ an automatic draw in computer chess". >This way it's clearer neither the operator nor any GUI can overrule the engine. > But of course current rules are enough if applied properly. > > José C. The right answer is "no operator". Why the ICCA/ICGA has stuck their heads in the sand for 20+ years and allowed this to continue defies logic.
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.