Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:06:44 02/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2000 at 09:41:16, blass uri wrote:
>On February 27, 2000 at 09:34:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On February 27, 2000 at 03:04:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think exact adherence to these rules is necessary.
>>>
>>>-Tom
>>
>>
>>It is if you plan on playing in human events...
>>
>>If you claim a repetition and refuse to continue to play, you lose. If you
>>don't recognize a repetition and continue to play, you can draw a won ending.
>
>The point is that the probability to have 3 times repetition that is not a draw
>because of castling or en passent is very low.
>
>I do not know about cases when it practically happened in games.
>
>Uri
I disagree. These are basic chess rules and if the program does not recognize
this, then it is not properly compliant to the game. How is 'low probability'
going to justify a program declaring a position drawn when it is not? I don't
think one can go about choosing which rules of chess the program will respect or
not. In any case, I have seen a case with two masters playing in which one
player was given a warning for declaring a draw improperly.
Albert Silver
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.