Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 15:03:10 12/09/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 09, 2003 at 17:54:52, martin fierz wrote:

>On December 09, 2003 at 16:03:18, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:11:14, martin fierz wrote:
>>
>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:54:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:43:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:41:39, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If the GUI can play half the game (opening moves), then it is part of the
>>>>>>chess-playing software.  The engine/GUI are one chess-playing entitiy.
>>>>>>Therefore, you point is egregiously in error.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who says the GUI must play the opening moves?!
>>>>
>>>>Nobody says that the GUI "must" do one thing or another. It is the seperation of
>>>>tasks. For example, you can let the interface play the opening moves, and do the
>>>>draw claim; let it only do the draw claim; do nothing; etc. There is no strict
>>>>border between the engine and the interface (read the WinBoard and UCI
>>>>protocols). I don't see how you can make the seperation...
>>>
>>>i suggest: the engine has to deal with any position that is not in a database
>>>(opening/endgame). the GUI can deal with all "mindless" tasks, meaning all
>>>database lookups.
>>>
>>>point being, that whether you let the GUI execute the moves in your book or
>>>whether you let the engine execute the moves in your book doesn't matter, both
>>>will choose the same moves if you give them the same book. same once you're in
>>>the tablebase. in this sense, it doesn't matter whether you let the GUI or
>>>engine do this.
>>>
>>>but choosing whether to claim a draw or not is a conscious decision by the
>>>chess-playing entity (be it human or computer). you are not forced to claim it,
>>>and therefore you must make a decision whether you want to claim it or not.
>>>since this is not a mindless database lookup, i believe the engine should decide
>>>whether it claims the draw or not.
>>>
>>
>>If the programmer is so concerned about when *not* to claim a draw, he can write
>>his own interface, or run under winboard which leaves the decision to the
>>engine. But the mere fact that the programmer has decided to run his engine
>>using UCI indicates that he wants every draw to be claimed.
>
>...or perhaps that he decided to use UCI because it has some other advantages
>compared to winboard?? my engine runs under both UCI and winboard. i didn't make
>it UCI compatible because UCI interfaces claim a draw! that is just a "side
>effect". i would run my engine under arena because i like that GUI. i certainly
>wouldn't have thought of using UCI because i want every draw claimed!
>
>>It is absolutely
>>irrelevant whether the claiming is done by the engine or by the interface.
>not at all. gerd has just made another very valid point: let's say i sacced a
>piece and started giving a perpetual. my opponent plays his 3rd repetition and
>does *not* claim the draw for whatever reasons. now, my engine should realize
>that it can either claim the draw, or use the entire rest of it's time looking
>for a win, instead of the normal few minutes. this may happen sometimes, that
>you have a perpetual but you can also bring in some reserves, slowly, and that
>the engine needs a long time to see that.
>if you were using the interface to claim the draw, it would simply claim the
>draw after the opponent has repeated the position 3 times. which *could* be a
>mistake...

Then use your own interface...


>
>>And the question I have asked here several times without anyone answering: How
>>did you expect the Jonny engine to claim the draw, if not via the interface?
>with an info string perhaps? the engine can still send messages to the operator,
>even if it's not a pop-up box.
>
>cheers
>  martin



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.