Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:18:33 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 13:25:39, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 19:07:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 17:38:11, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 16:45:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:00, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>>>>>>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>>>>>>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>>>>>>for the machine. >>>>>> >>>>>>By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >>>>>>the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >>>>>>but to play on (or resign). >>>>>> >>>>>>QED >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>GCP >>>>> >>>>>I do not understand what you are saying. >>>>> >>>>>My point is based on the following: >>>>> >>>>>1.The contest was between machines. >>>> >>>>No, between chess engines. >>> >>>;-) >>> >>>> >>>>>2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase >>>>>GUI. >>>> >>>>OK, but the engine was playing, not the chess GUI. >>> >>>This where we part company..... (It chose book moves, I believe.). >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>3.It would have been better if the machines played without human interference, >>>>>but failing this the operator should not have been able to influenece the >>>>>result. >>>> >>>>This was allowed as the operator should have been the one to ask the TD to be >>>>allowed to resign...see Darsen post which is complete... >>>> >>>>>4.The machine claimed a draw (ie its 'move' was draw). >>>> >>>>No, the machine did not claimed a draw. The GUI advised that there was a 3-moves >>>>repetition. This is not a draw claim. >>>>Since the programmer can set the draw value in it's program. If the setting is >>>>accept a draw only when the score is -50, than the GUI showing a 3 moves >>>>repetition would be ignored by the engine...so this is not a draw claim, but >>>>only a info display... >>>>It is therefore wrong to claim that an info advising a 3 moves repetions is an >>>>automatic draw. The program should state clearly "I am going to play "..." which >>>>will draw the game according to FIDE rule..." > >Hi, > >> >>As far as I know no single program does it according to the fide rules. > >Correct, so do you think it is correct to automatically claim a draw if the >score goes to 0.00 or on a 3-fold repetition? >I think that what we learned here is that we need to improve this to avoid >different opinions on this matter. > >To me this means to me that the programs are not able to play chess as they are >not in accordance with FIDE rules. This needs to be changed. >Also if is OFFENSIVE for an opponent that a program continuo to play when the >score is lower than -10. It is the right of the opponent not to resign. It is the programmer of the jonny who did not tell it to resign. >I think this value is already very high as normally with -3 the games are 95% >lost already. >I really do not believe one can play against Kasparov at -10 without him leaving >the room... kasparov may be angry but he will have to finish the game correctly if he wants to win. > >> >>Even my movei does it by claiming a draw together with the move that it is going >>to play. >> >>No problem with changing the rules of computer chess that are not the fide rules >>but you should tell it to the participants before the championship and not after >>it. > >Correct, but if top level TD agree with the decision that was taken this means >to me that the situation was at least not fully clear. I believe that it was the >correct one and to be honest we would not have liked at all to win a >Championship "forcing" Fritz to get a draw in the same situation. I have been >reported that the Fritz team did the same thing as they made no objection. So I >must admit they are quite sportive and they did deserve the playoff also from >their sportive attitude too... The point is that decisions should be the same for all the games. If shredder-Junior was drawn only by claim of 3 time repetition and not correct draw claim then the same should be for other games. > >> >>I wonder what happened in other drawn games like Diep-falcon. >> >>Did one of the engines in the game claimed the draw correctly based on your >>definition? > >Did I say the opposite? >But here "someone" said the we should have asked for the draw because of the >3-fold repetition which is NOT AN AUTOMATIC DRAW and the programs should handle >that correctly and not the GUI, which can only give info and advise the opening >moves... It was a draw if you follow the rules that were used in the other games of the tournament. Deciding that it is the choice of the operator if to claim a draw or not to do it is not acceptable. Uri
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.