Author: margolies,marc
Date: 07:02:02 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
both questions are reasonable. 1) having been to many tournaments, I can tell you that even when 200 boards are in the room that a much fewer number are critical to the outcome of the tournament. Also that amomg those critical boards even fewer would have players whose skills would necessitate the application of the **progress** definition which I presented here. A practical application of the new rule might only concern the top 100 players in the world plus computer players. In an Olympiad,eg, only the top board of a team might be observed in this way for long term progress. 2) I agree that a critical mass of tablebase generation must happen before such a rule is enacted. But I also believe that rule changes happen slowly and in response to a change in conditions of over-the-board play. The short answer is that I am in no rush to see this rule enacted. By the time enough arbiters could ever find this idea attractive ( and this is possible because the objective criteria which I proffered actually lessens their need for sophisticated EG understanding) the tablebase resources will probably be existant. If the idea of the rule is attractive enough, itcould also drive a market for tablebase generation. -marc On April 30, 2004 at 04:44:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >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.