Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:27:11 12/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2003 at 20:11:19, Mike S. wrote: >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?? :-)) Somehow, Mike, you nitpick and then you don't get the most simple stuff. Question is what is going on here. Please don't exaggerate it. It won't work, you only prove for the archives that you are playing games. But you lose all of em. > >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. Why should it be ridiculous, Mike. You are confusing FIDE with computerchess, that's so simple. Apparently you like to dig in such questions but you can't save Graz decisions of the ICGA. It is this. No matter what machine detects a 3-fold, its operator must claim the draw, yes. Fine that you dont like that, but it is life. > >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! Mike, can you move your ears? Then please, if you move em for 24 hours without a pause then I will be ready to think about your question. Certainly all programmers will do what you want. Certainly they will make a message display like this: "Hi, operator, this is just an info about a 3-fold, but please don't claim a draw - I, the engine or GUI, was just telling you some news...!" For sure, Mike. This will be a revolutionary invention in chess. A 3-fold must not be a draw, it is ok, Mike. But now you must move your ears, wiggle them! > >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. Mike, you got it! A player, here the operator, in order of the machine must claim the draw. And we won't change that in computerchess. > >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. MIKEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have a problem! Earth to Mike! Why is it "may" here and not must???????? Because you are right with your idea that a 3-fold could well be NOT a draw??? No! It is may because in human chess a player might overlook the 3-fold. Then there is no draw. Clear so far? But in computerchess it is different. A machine detects the draw. And you as operator claim it. PERIOD. >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. Yes, of course. But in computerchess it's the operator who claims the draw. In order of the machine. Not claiming the draw properly is cheating, Mike. > >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? Yes, Mike, because it's nonsense, therefore it's so difficult. But I still follow. I'm a psychologist, I can follow if you say even worse nonsense. Your example is near to the Shredder bug case. As if it hadn't the rule implemented. And the opponent had a lost game. And that opponent wanted to lose the game because he felt sorry for Shredder. A cheat of course. Therefore Zwanzger continued to play and didn't claim the draw properly. But TD could have ordered to take back the further moves. And a draw would have been the result. Wch is FRITZ. Please dont talk Chinese in your next message because the interpreter is in holidays.... on my side! Rolf > >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.