Author: margolies,marc
Date: 07:31:49 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
i think your suggestion is a bit of a red-herring here. any gm tournament which has sponorship and a TOMA/DGT system will be able to handle this technology and cost issue practically. and outside the celestial realm of super-gm play the issue addressed by this potential rule-change to EG move-length is moot in the paradigm that I offered you. -marc On April 30, 2004 at 10:19:35, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 30, 2004 at 10:02:02, margolies,marc wrote: > >>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 > >Suppose the arbiter only has room for a subset of all the TBs, few people >actually have room for them all currently. >So a tournament might not be possible without a big investment in hardware, or >the alternative is nobody will be able to follow the FIDE rules. > >I suppose the arbiter could publish a list before the tournament begins, to tell >everybody which TBs he has on his computer, then for the rest the x-move rule >applies. >Now all the players can keep this list by their side while they play, to sneak a >peak at which endgames they can safely go into and which to avoid. > >Of course if I've studied how to mate with RN vs NN and the stupid arbiter >doesn't have that on his computer I will instantly complain to FIDE. > >All in all a very neatly thoughtout mess :) > >-S.
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.