Author: José Carlos
Date: 11:27:00 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 13:27:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 04:56:01, José Carlos wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 13:52:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 2003 at 13:26:45, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 2003 at 12:47:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 2003 at 09:19:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 12, 2003 at 03:30:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>The main opening book of Falcon is in Shredder Classic format (BOK), but I can >>>>>>>also create a similar book out of my pgn database in Fritz format (CTG). In any >>>>>>>case, Falcon relies on the interface to play the opening moves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, AFAIK there is no way to connect either the Fritz or Shredder Classic >>>>>>>interfaces to play on ICC. In that case, and assuming that there is no external >>>>>>>program that can read either BOK or CTG formats and play the moves on behalf of >>>>>>>WinBoard interface, I don't see how Falcon can play in CCT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems that the only interfaces that can connect to ICC are WinBoard and >>>>>>>Arena, none of which have their own book formats (can't compile a book out of a >>>>>>>pgn database). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>However, non-winboard engines such as Shredder, Fritz, Junior, and Hiarcs have >>>>>>>already participated in CCT in the past. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What am I missing?! >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that you should "roll your own book program". I suspect it won't be >>>>>>long before using a foreign interface is illegal in all CC competitions. >>>>> >>>>>Judging by the fact that in Graz most of the programs used either Fritz or >>>>>Shredder interfaces, I don't see it becoming illegal anytime soon. And I see no >>>>>reason why it should be made illegal... >>>> >>>> I don't know whether it'll become illegal or not, but I find it against common >>>>sense that some people use (in tournaments) GUI's that make decisions for the >>>>program, like book moves, draw claims, etc. >>>> I won't use Anubis in CCT because I don't have time to implement book >>>>handling. >>>> I hope sometime soon this is ruled so that either the author writes his own >>>>interface or the interface makes nothing but comunicate (user-engine, >>>>engine-chess server, etc...). >>>> Nevertheless, I won't complain at all if you use Fritz or Shredder or >>>>whatever. I play just for fun. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>> >>>I think draw claims are the right task for a GUI. >> >> Yes, _your_ GUI, or if you want to use a GUI from someone else, it must do >>nothing but communicate. That's what I said. >> >> José C. >> > >I don't agree. Draw claims are deterministic behavior. IE if the engine >plays a move that repeats for the 3rd time, it obviously wants the draw, >as even if it doesn't claim it, the opponent can do so instantly. So if >it doesn't want the repetition, it can't repeat. Ditto for 50 move rule >draws. If the engine doesn't claim it, the opponent can instantly, without >a move or anything. So again, if the engine doesn't want it, it had better >do something to reset the counter, rather than hoping the opponent doesn't >notice. I can live with that. But if I can choose, I'd rather set the 3-fold repetition to 'automatic draw' so any GUI claiming it would be just applying the rules, or forbid an external (commercial or not) GUI to claim it. If the rule is intended to _allow_ the player to claim a draw, an external interface is making a decision, no matter how alphabeta works (in which I agree with you BTW). I think the automatic draw rule would be a much cleaner solution. I find it useful for humans (who might overlook it or try to confuse the opponent in time trouble or whatever) but I find stupid that a computer must make such a decision. Repeating for the third time is the decision. Claiming the draw is redundant. Just my opinion. José C. >Choosing book moves is a different matter, as there is decision-making that >goes on there. And I don't want the GUI (for my program) doing the root >tablebase moves, as my "swindle mode" give me better winning chances in EGTB >draw positions, when my opponent doesn't have the necessary EGTB to see the >proper drawing variation. The GUI would prevent that from working. > > >> >>>After all the GUI is >>>responsible for handling the real game board and game history, so it is >>>perfectly suited to do this, particularly when the GUI's main purpose >>>is "user interface" and the user definitely has to be notified about >>>claims for draws, checkmates, flag falls, etc. The engine should not >>>be responsible for most of that at all.
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.