Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: no claim, no draw (etc.)

Author: Mike S.

Date: 00:27:02 12/25/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 24, 2003 at 21:41:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>>>>>(...)

>NOPE Mike! That a 3-fold, once you notice it, is a draw, this is NOT something
>special for computerchess, but for human chess and from there it was taken to
>computerchess.

You certainly know (?) that a 3-fold is *not* automatically a draw once one
notices it, but *only when claimed* It doesn't have to be a draw. The same goes
for the 50 move rule. The only "must" draw like that is stalemate :-)

When I'm (otherwise) *winning*, i.e. a rook up etc., and my opponent forces a
perpetual, I won't claim a draw of course. Still, I may take notice of it. But
it makes no sense to claim. Also, I *don't have to claim* (of course independent
from who's better). If the opponent misses it - his business. That's how it
actually really is in chess in general (I don't quite know what else you are
talking about).

I guess you may assume, all computerchess programs would be so foolish to claim
the draw against themselves then in a situation like above, but that's not true
either. I definetely know Nimzo 2000 (own GUI) doesn't claim such draws when 0.5
would be lost by it so to speak. I guess Fritz in serious rating game mode will
behave the same, but I didn't test that.

I'm not talking about a program which has the bad position and is happy to draw
(not about the Jonny case anymore, but more general), but I'm talking about the
program who has the much *better* position, but couldn't avoid the repetition.
Now, how does this program *only inform* the operator that is has spotted the
repetition, but not claim at the same time?

I think you've really misunderstood that.

So, regarding your view of the "two sentences", the program would have no other
option than to remain silent. I see no other option currently, when the rules
(written or not) are so ambigous. Imagine you're the opponent operator with an
engine in early developement, repetition rule not implemented, you're a rook
down but can force a repetition (engines will do that no matter if the rule is
implemented or not, because it keeps the opponent from increasing his
advantage). Now, when the *other* program just pops up "3-fold repetition" meant
as an info only, you will run to the TD claiming your opponent's program has
claimed a draw, but the evil operator continues to play... :-))

That's why this has to be clarified in a way, that the info and the claim can be
distinguished from each other.

(I did my best to explain :-))

>Writers who imply that it is justified that the party with the worse position
>should NOT claim a draw in case of a 3-fold must repeat classes and enter the
>special lecture of Geheimrat Rolf about logic and chess history. The loop
>remains until writers admit that they were absolutely wrong in their perception.

Of course they should claim the draw :-) and every programmer will certainly
care that they do. I just say when they claim, they should have to use the words
"draw claim" or "I claim draw," but just "3-fold repetition" is not sufficient
IMO, as explained above. Also, think of cases where it's not so clear which
position is better or worse (which is not so uncommon). The program must be able
to give at least an information (only) that a repetition happened in a way that
it's not a draw claim by any rules, at the same time.

I don't agree to an opinion, that a 3-fold in a computerchess game *must*
inavoidably and immediatly end the game as a draw. This is not chess culture,
and the FIDE rules are different. It must be claimed. No claim, no draw.

OTOH, in the general or private practise (of automatic engine tournaments), in
contrast to "official" tournaments, this topic doesn't exist anyway. Because
then, this is handled by the software alone. When a repetition occurs, it will
be always a draw, in an engine match or Auto232 match I think. I wonder if there
are exceptions, i.e. when both engines evaluated themselves better after an
"unforced" repetition, not by perpetual... There's not search function for that.
Very unlikely, but probably not impossible.

More common are accidents like engine 1 misevaluating a 50 move draw in the 99th
ply and making a stupid move which allowes engine 2 to mate immediatly in the
next move, because the mating move is neiter a pawn move nor a capture. I seem
to remember a report, that a program (or a chess computer?) played the mating
move and claimed a 50 move draw :-)) So if the claim comes (correctly) before
moving in such a situation, but it's visible that the program actually has and
plans a # in 1 at the same time, lets just hope that this will never happen in a
decisive game in the last round of an ICGA tournament :-))

>BTW I find it extremely sympathetic that in special Chr. Liebert from CSS has
>defended the LIST author with so much energy.
>
>I can only hope that Fritz gets a fair compensation if it should be proven that
>the reproaches against his engine were false. Here: couldn't be proven at all.
>Also I find that the lack of solidarity by all the other programmers is crying
>loud to Heaven!

About that, we both (and others who usually disagree :-) are of the same, or at
least similar, opinion, so we must be right...  IMO the protest wasn't founded
well enough to justify the demand to provide the source code. I don't assume
that there are exactly defined standards regarding the requirements for a
protest to be valid, which then could lead to that in consequence. I'd say there
should be somewhat high standards (strong evidence) be required, to be able to
lead to a disqualification in case the source code is not provided, in respect
of the "in dubio pro reo" principle. Not providing the sources in itself is not
such a big crime, so if there's no proof for the clone accusation, I don't
understand such a long ban either.

But I'm afraid, that case has been closed already. Maybe we'll see after the
next scandal, if the rules have been improved then. Every amateur should be
ready to face such an accusation, and take steps respectively.

Form my viewpoint, if I was a chess programmer, I'd not want to join a
competition even with the risk to face such an accusation out of the blue, under
such insufficient circumstances. Even that is hardly tolerable. Probably it was
easier to defend oneself in front of the holy inquisition (ore they'd simply
burn him as well, when he doesn't provide his secret book of wizard spells).

Meanwhile, List is in continueing developement and performing very fine (better
than some pros).

>All the best to you, Mike, and enjoyable holidays and a Happy New Year,
>
>Rolf

Same to you,
Mike Scheidl



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.