Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 04:23:00 03/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2005 at 07:05:00, James T. Walker wrote: >I assume you are right that the tablebases >will lead you to a draw when a longer mate may lead to a win without violating >the 50 move rule Ok, then you understand my point. Giving a PV which optimizes DTM is no proof. > but how do you find that mate? In this case, there is no such mate. I just say that Mike Byrne did not proof there is no such mate. Using a special tablebase respecting the 50-move rule gives the answer. Such tablebases have been generated mainly by Marc Bourzutschky and John Tamplin. In this position, the DTZ-value is 71, so it is definitely a draw. (DTZ = Depth To Zeroing move counter for an n-move rule) >Maybe in computer vs computer games the 50 move rule should be ignored? Of course this could be discussed. However I dislike different rules for humans and computers. And especially in automated eng-eng tournaments the 50-move rule makes sense, else some games could continue very long, for example in blocked positions. regards Rafael B. Andrist
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.