Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:32:04 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 05:24:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>>My point is: >>>> >>>>1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >>>>the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >>>>2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >>>>chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >>>>concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >>>>hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? >>> >> >>Hi, >> >>first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view >>and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. >>Still I do not agree with you...see below. >> >>>The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. >> >>Correct. >>I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes >>down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). > >The problem is that with the new rule programmers have no problem to change >their evaluation and never show a score of more than -9.999 pawns against >themselves even in case of mate. Ok, this should be verified with a secret position before the tournament start. If a programmer is found as cheating, than unless he can demostrate it is due to a bug for that specific position it will be disqualified. > >It is easy to do it for me by dividing all scores by 10 so 99.99 that is mate in >one today becomes 9.999 > >The only way to implement it correctly is if an external program does the >evaluation. Maybe. Mine is a proposal. Maybe there is a better idea to handle this. > >Note that I have no problem with new rules. > > ><snipped> >>Some years ago, I was the operator to M-Chess in a tournament near where I live >>and we were playing against a Yugoslavian chess player which got a better >>position, but the program got a 3-fold repetition position. I call the TD and he >>told me that I made the claim in the wrong way (I moved first and than call the >>TD), so I could not ask for the draw. It was not important that I did not knew >>the right procedure... >>I accepted the TD decision without protesting at all. This is my style and I am >>proud of it. > >This is a different case because the operator is part of the game in comp-human >games and if you make an operator error and make moves that the program did not >play it is your problem when it was never the case in WCCC in comp-comp games > It is true, but for me it is the same...the TD has the final word. >Uri Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.