Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:52:01 12/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2003 at 05:14:51, martin fierz wrote: >[snip] > >>Here is the question you have to answer: "what engine will "notice and inform >>you about a 3-fold repetition" but not intend to claim it? The answer is none. > >which doesn't mean that it *could* do so. e.g. i just played a game which ended >in a 3-fold repetition, and i noticed it in my mind before claiming the draw. >the engine might even output a line like "37. Be3+ would be a 3-fold repetition" >and then think about whether it really wants to do this. > >>>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? >> >> >>That is a circular and pointless argument. IE the program repeated for the >>second time and couldn't avoid it. If it can't avoid the 3rd repetition >>either, then what possible point is there to continue, since it also won't >>be able to avoid the 4th, or the 5th, if it couldn't avoid the 3rd. This >>seems to be based on a humans ability to overlook the obvious (the repetition) >>and give you another chance. Computers won't overlook anything, and if you >>think you have winning chances, you vary before the 3rd repetition to keep the >>game alive. That is the _only_ way to play. And it is certainly the way the >>tree search handles this... > >you can imagine different scenarios if you really want :-) >e.g. say i programmed my engine to think deeply after a 2fold repetition, to >make sure that by playing it's next move which will allow the opponent to claim >a draw it is not making a mistake (incidentally, humans who are aware that they >would be giving the opponent the opportunity to draw would do that). so my >program thinks over that move for an hour and has only a few minutes left on the >clock. then, my opponent's program decides to avoid the repetition because i >have little time left on my clock, i.e. it can avoid the repetition but end up >in an objectively bad position, but it's speculating on my lack of time (humans >do that too). using a contempt factor which adjusts itself according to the >opponent's remaining time can produce such behavior. > >i think mike is quite right. It's ok that you think so but it isn't therefore true. Of course he's damned wrong. >the rules are too ambiguous on this point and If you begin to theoretically hold a lesson about Wortklauberei, then yes, otherwise the rules are perfect. You must only read them with open eyes. I mean open mind. In case you want to play word-games then I agree you can find many interesting twists. >should be changed. what if i use a pop-up box in my program with informational >purpose? i could have one which says "i claim a draw" and one which says "FYI: i >could claim a draw here if i wanted" - since i might want my program to show >this so that i see that it knows. what if my pop-up texts were not quite as >explicit? The truth is that you simply do _not_ read what has been said. The moment a prog discovers a 3-fold it will go for it if it's in a worse position. Like Jonny whose operator however chose to cheat and he played on. If a prog is in a better position then why the hell should it go for the rep??? If the rep is not to avoid then yes, why didn't the program avoid the rep earlier in the game? What you are discussing here is inventing cool scenarios which could never happen in reality. Why? Because the rules say that a 3-fold rep is a draw. In computerchess it "is" a draw. In human chess, the rules say it 'may' be a draw, just because these humans could overlook something, that's typical human, but a machine won't do that. Therefore, you must only read the perfect explanations of Bob Hyatt, the operator is given no choice when something pops up about a 3-fold, either if it says info 3-fold or 3-fold or I claim draw because of 3-fold etc. >if i used "3-fold repetition" instead of the FYI text? for me it would >be clear that my program is not claiming a draw, but the TD wouldn't know >that... Here you are just dreaming. Of course your prog - which one is your prog? - could say 3-fold repetition and for the program it would be like draw. But you as the clever programmer, you are saying that this is by no means a draw. What a nonsense. Because, what you say is uninteresting, because after such a note about a 3-fold you will, according to the rules, inform the TD about the draw intentions. All other moves from your side as a human are called cheating - against the rules. Look, it would be a perversion of computerchess if we now would introduce the human weaknesses into the machine chess. But go on, try to defend ICGA failures. Rolf > >cheers > martin
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.