Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 01:44:32 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2004 at 22:02:28, margolies,marc wrote: >Doctor Hyatt, your comments are fair. >My own perception of the failure of my previous statement is that I allowed a >'subjectivity' argument to enter the mix. This happens because I did not define >**progress** mathematically. >The little mathematician inside me ( he should pay me rent!) tells me I should >state that a definition of **progress** in an endgame is possible and leave it >at that. But I'll go further to offer one with the expectation that the better >minds here will shoot it down. >We can use tablebases and computers to craft(no pun intended) a **progress** >function. each position under question can scored for its distance to win lose >or draw. If over a pre-determned large number of moves (say 50)the arbiter can >simply demonstrate randomness of that number in a histogram then it's over. a >draw. >-marc You'd think it should be possible to have rules that didn't require a computer with table bases to monitor the game. Imagine a tournament hall with 200 players, how are you going to monitor all that? What if the table base in question hasn't been generated yet? Should the FIDE rules change as table bases are being generated? -S.
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.