Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 06:11:01 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2005 at 08:53:58, jefkaan wrote: >On May 11, 2005 at 21:52:59, Terry McCracken wrote: > >> >>Hi Dann, imo his question was open to programers, even though he addressed Dr. >>Hyatt. > >yep, that was the case indeed, but maybe i didn't formulate it >precise enough; see my next question below > >>Taking it to e-mail may not be wrong, but it seems anyone with an informed >>thought out answer would suffice. > >indeed, even Vincent, but personally i wouldn't be interested in >whether the current Fide rules fundamentally are correct or not, >if you know what i mean.. > >thanks first of all about notifying me that also the 6 man egtb >are keeping the 50 move rule in mind (with the exception as Dann C) >pointed out that they dont have a move history); simply didnt know that, >as i'm not using the 6 man thing yet, just contemplating it >(via Internet either with Shredder 9 or Chess Assist8.1, eg >for endgame studies). > >secondly, wouldnt it be interesting as an option to discard >the Fide 50 move rule, in case there are force mates in >a higher number of moves ? Personally i think that would >be interesting; and when playing with a comp, an >interface or the server could anyway decide on the >50 move drawing ruling; ofcourse the eval >would be wrong (eg saying mate in 190 or so) but >when the opponent, not having the 6 man bases, would >play erroneous moves, you might be lucky anyway, >arriving at mate within the 50 moves. That is still a mate then. And rules could be relaxed for computers because they do not tire like people do. The rule was formulated so that people would not demand to play on and on and on while not making any progress. The computers will know exactly what to do and with an n-man tablebase can play instantly when the board has only n men on it. On the other hand, you might say that if you have battled to the point where the opponent cannot defeat you within 100 non-reversible moves then you have earned a draw. In order to change the rule, there would have to be some kind of consensus. >last stupid question: >are the 6 man tables now complete ? No. A long way to go. >any plans in the future for some 7 man tables ? >:) It is inevitable. But they will have to wait until the six man files are complete, because the larger tables rely upon those tables beneath them. >thx in advance for the reply..
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.