Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Does your program understand castling/en passant rights on 3x repetition

Author: blass uri

Date: 07:06:56 02/28/00

Go up one level in this thread


On February 28, 2000 at 09:08:21, James T. Walker wrote:

>On February 27, 2000 at 11:50:43, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On February 27, 2000 at 09:46:22, Mike S. wrote:
>>
>>>On February 27, 2000 at 03:04:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't think exact adherence to these rules is necessary.
>>>
>>>No? You may want to try this position with your computer:
>>>
>>>Zepler # in 4 - [+1430.04e5e8]
>>>Die Schwalbe, 1929
>>>
>>>[D]r3k3/2Qp3R/1p6/1b2K3/4p3/8/5p2/8 w q - 0 1
>>>1.Kd4 (threats 2.Qe5+ and 3.#) [1.Qd6? 0-0-0] 1...Ra4+ 2.Ke5 Ra8 3.Qd6 1-0
>>>
>>>I was busy with this issue when a wrote a short article for CSS 4/1995. All the
>>>programs I tested then, didn't apply the correct rule (Fritz 3, Rebel 6, W Chess
>>>1, Genius 3 and Hiarcs 3). It was remarkable that the mistake happened in
>>>problem mode also.
>>
>>This is really a problem but most programs are not for solving problems but for
>>playing.
>>
>>> CB's Mate 2.0-engines handles it correctly.
>>>Btw., I'm sure programmers know the rule very well of course, but when it's
>>>disregarded it is been done to gain more search speed I think. I have never
>>>heard of any important, or not even unimportant, game where this would have
>>>mattered.
>>>But if this would happen (incorrect claim of a draw, program refuses to
>>>continue), I think there would be no special tournament rules for this and the
>>>unavoidable anger, dispute and scandal would follow.
>>
>>There are clear rules that if the program does not do a move and claims a draw
>>incorrectly when there is no draw then it loses on time.
>>
>>There will be no scandals  but only a loss.
>>
>>I guess the practical chance that it happens in a game is less than 0.00001
>>and it is more productive to fix other problems.
>>
>> Such things usually arise
>>>in the most important game of a championship. I will be amused...
>>
>>There is no reason that they arise in the most important game.
>>The chances are the same for every game.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Hello Uri,
>It is my opinion that this attention to detail is what separates the good
>programs from the "wanna bees".  After all, I can take the chess board and chess
>pieces and change the rules enough to suit me and end up playing checkers.  Just
>because you are playing with chess pieces on a chess board does not make it
>chess.  That's what the rules are for!  If you do not follow all the rules you
>are playing a variation of chess not chess.  I run into this all the time with
>golfers who decide which rules they will follow and which rules do not suite
>them at the moment.  It is the reason I stopped playing tournament golf.
>Jim Walker

The rules are clear and if you do not follow the rules you lose.

The point is that the probability that if you lose one out of 10000 games
because of not following the rules then I can understand that programmers who
are interested in ssdf rating are not interested in correcting the problem.

Uri



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.