Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Darse, how about defending your perspective.

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 09:57:17 12/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 11, 2003 at 12:49:15, Sune Fischer wrote:

>On December 11, 2003 at 12:30:23, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>I won't quote his post again, but it was quite provocative and condecending IMO,
>>>not to mention wrong.
>>
>>Maybe, and you are...?
>
>At least trying to argue my case and not throwing "if you don't agree with me
>it's because you don't understand the rules" in your face :)
>
>>>I'll tell you. They are going to play 3000 moves until one of them crashes! - no
>>>I am not kidding, try it yourself!
>>
>>I know, so it can be stopped. Only a machine with a MONSTER DATABASE could
>>handle pass the 50 move rule.
>
>Sure it can be stopped, just pull the plug.
>
>>>That's the technical side of it, it probably takes a chess programmer to fully
>>>appreciate these problems and realize their severity, no offence.
>>
>>I don't doubt it, but it isn't impossible either.
>>
>>>But going a bit deeper than that, how do you design a program that knowns when
>>>to make the draw claim and when not to?
>>
>>Make it "smart", remember, 40 years ago computer would _never_ beat a master!
>
>If you made it "smart" it would avoid the draw in the first place.
>
>What you're proposing is some way to recover from a fatal bug, while I'm saying
>"spend your time on getting rid of the fatal bug".
>
>>>I guess you want some sort of clause, "If I have a bug and accidentally played
>>>into a draw but otherwise is winning, then don't claim it".
>>
>>Didn't imply that.
>
>I extrapolated, I don't see any other reason to why you would want to continue
>playing after having selected a drawn line, presumably the point of playing the
>draw was to achieve the draw.
>If my logic is flawed please feel free to point it out to me :)
>
>>>I disagree, for two reasons.
>>>
>>>First of all no FIDE TD would ever allow a player to lose on purpose, for that
>>>reason I think a draw should have claimed.
>>
>>Of course it should, and you've misunderstood me!
>
>If we agree the TD should have ruled a draw, then what are we disagreeing on?
>
>Is the TD really allowed to let a player continue playing when that means
>certain defeat?
>From what I hear some TDs even get angry with players agreeing on fast draws, so
>imagine losing on purpose!
>
>>Thanks for the LECTURE.....
>
>Anytime, glad I could be there for you.
>;)
>
>-S.

We agree more than disagree, I'm just tired of this endless debate. I'm at home
sick, and on pills not really up to this anymore....my problem, but it explains
to some extent my impatience.

Sorry.

Terry



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.