Author: Mike S.
Date: 17:11:19 12/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2003 at 04:07:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>(...) > I definetely know Nimzo 2000 (own GUI) doesn't claim such draws when 0.5 >>would be lost by it so to speak. > >How can it lose 1/2 points by it? >It only can lose it by a bug. > >A program with no stupid bugs cannot get into 3 time reptition from a winning >position and if the original position is a draw then it does not lose 1/2 point >by it but only lose some chance that the opponent will go wrong. Didn't you ever see that an engine which is otherwise totally lost, saves half a point with a perpetual? That's very common isn't it? I was talking from the viewpoint of the *other* engine, the one which was winning when there wouldn't be a perpetual possible. This engine looses 1/2 by it. So it's purely *idiotic* to claim from this engines viewpoint. The other engine must do it (or - if it's a human - may as well miss it!). You understand?? :-)) It's ridiculous when the "winning" engine claims the repetition draw the opponent has forced to *his* advantage! If you (and the others here) don't understand this, I can only say sorry. Nevertheless, a neutral information for the operator should be possible without being automatically treated as a claim. I this really so difficult to understand, folks?? Come on! Basically it's just about adding the words "I claim a draw due..." to a message string (or leave these words away for an info message when no claim is intended) and the rules should be improved respectively, distinguishing between that. Also (@Bob Hyatt), it's not true that the FIDE rule don't distinguish between (a) 3-fold repetition and (b) *draw by* 3-fold repetition. Read the rules. It's only a draw when a draw claim is made based on that, by one player. http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 "5.2 (...) The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)" **MAY** be drawn, not must be a draw. And 9.2: "9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move." **Upon a correct claim** --> No claim, no draw. But maybe you will be telling me that the FIDE rules are wrong :-) And @ Rolf, didn't you read my theoretical example with an engine which has no repetition rule implemented? Then, it makes a big difference, if the *opponent* engine which faces a forced repetition and gives just an info, if it's treated as a draw claim or not. Because if not, there's a chance to continue and still win, when the other engine doesn't know it has to repeat and cannot claim it. Is that too difficult to follow? Regards, M.Scheidl
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.