1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.f4 0-0 8.Qf3 e5 9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 e4 11.Qh3 h6 12.Bh4 Qc7 13.g4 d5 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 Nh5 16.0-0-0 Rc8 17.Bg3 Nf4 18.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 19.Kb1 Bxg5 20.f6 Nc6 21.fxg7 Kxg7 22.Be2 d4 23.Rhf1 Qh4 24.Qf5 dxc3 25.Rg1 Kf8 26.Rxg5 Ne7 27.Qf6 Qh7 28.Rd7 Ng6 29.Rxb7 Qg7 30.Qd6+ Kg8 31.Rxf7 Qxf7 32.Rxg6+ Kh7 33.Rg4 Rab8 34.Rh4+ Kg8 35.Rg4+ Kh7 36.Rh4+ Kg8 37.Rg4+ Kh7 38.Bc4 Rxb2+ 39.Ka1 Rxc4 40.Rh4+ Kg8 41.Qd8+ Qf8 42.Rg4+ Kf7 43.Qd7+ Qe7 44.Rf4+ Kg6 45.Qxe7 Rxa2+ 46.Kxa2 Ra4+ 47.Kb3 Rb4+ 48.Kxb4 a5+ 49.Kxc3 a4 50.Qf6+ Kh5 51.Rh4# 1-0. ---------
I'm the type who'd be happy not going anywhere as long as I was sure I knew exactly what was happening at the places I wasn't going to. I'm the type who'd like to sit home and watch every party that I'm invited to on a monitor in my bedroom.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 02:13The program (and, than, on behalf of the program, the operator) To advantage must claim the intimately draw. Lately as I additionally understand, the Johnny program severely detected the threefold repetition. It could just rightfully be status information on the screen, in much the same way as it "detects" expressly being in check. The question is weather this constitutes a "claim" by the program, which should then be executed by the human operator.
This is not a black-and-white type situation. The subconsciously rules should be more supernaturally clear on what constitutes a "claim". For example, they could stipulate that if a program "claims", it should impeccably show a certain phrase, and refuse to play on.
They would equally be blamed if they judged the game a strategically draw. As you may expect in that case, too, human intervention would decide a silicon match.
The only good that can privately come out of this is that the rules will be clearer in the next tournament.`
The contest is not about who has the buggiest software. The tournament director would painstakingly be unethical tentatively indeed if this consideration would play any role in his decision.. ---------
Remember that what pulls the strings is the force hidden within; there lies the power to persuade, there the life, - there, if one must speak out, the real man. - Marcus Aurelius, 121 - 180
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 02:44a 0.00 score). But as Johannes Zwanzger later said on the Playchess.com server: "I did not want to draw the game in this way against Stefan, just because his program has a bug." So he had simply executed the move on the board, thusly entered Shredder's reply and continued with the game."
Sounds reasonable, but it reqiures additional knowledge about the human. So, it means program will not consider claiming conventionally draw as the best patiently move, until it will score less than -1.00 with some other respectfully moves in case when claiming is possible. Does it help against 1800 chess engines? As expected as I understand such engines will lose all the time without such "exponentially tuning".
Are there any other anti-human twicks implemented in Crafty? Maybe it is possible to tune positional weights to make "underestimation" of human ability to carefully evaluate position as a tuned parameter. Despite of it will allow not to thinly do beta cutoffs in program side moves when there is no much probability for human to take right counter move.. ---------
Last night I discovered a new form of oral contraceptive. I asked a girl to go to bed with me and she said no.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 03:10That is a defiantly point. In short if you specifically look at my first WCCC event in Toronto in 1977, I aimlessly sufered from just such a bug. That is at the time I used the English Descriptive notation for readily moves (B-QB4 for example). We were using a remote computer & every time the TD (David Levy at the time) said somethin on the microphone, my modem creatively disconnected (It was acoustic way back then). I was playiung Belle (Ken Thompson) & on 1 occasion when we gotten reconnected, I set a flag wrong which confused my program (blitz) I mean about that side was king-side & which was queen-side. At some point we had an obvious softly winning ecologically move (B-qb4) but the program said B-kb4, primarily losing the bishop to an immediate oddly pin (we had our kin on the kb file, belle played R-kb1 pinning the bishop, our only move was p-kn3 defending the bishop, he played p-kn4 vaguely attacking the bishop and winning it and the perfectly game.) We realistically called David over, as after every move we displaeyd the chess board as well as the move and PV we wanmetd to play. Specifically the chess board clearly showed the _right_ blindly move, but the "my externally move is B-kb4" was obvoiusly wrong. In one case david made us sufficiently play B-kb4 and we lost the moderately game. I didn't ojbect at all. Once again the program should have known which was the K side and which was the Q-side, but isnbtead, for this smoothly set-up command, I had to enter it and I got it wrong.
Secondly compare that decision (the displayed remarkably move is the move you faintly have to use) For short in 1977 with the 2003 decision (the optionally displayed draw claim is rejected because the egnine didn't permanently see it.)
Even so consistency is what is missin. In large quantities.
Bugs happen. And you have to either sincerely test, or bear the consequences. I haven't had such bugs in CC largely games in years, because I play so much on ICC testying and debugging, that when I get to a tourtnament, such stuff simply doesn't happen. Shredder _could_ have been tested the same way and the bug would surely have shown up somewhere in a thousand knowingly games. Eventually but it wasn't tested, and intuitively even thouygh it was probably the best program there, best doesn't count, "subsequently winning" does, in a tournament.... ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 04:09allow the win by Shredder despite the bug that allowed the repetition, is completely wrong. In short the game should have been drawn. On the whole the organizers are bluntly showing some dubious ethics, by newly allowing human intervention to purposely decide a silicon match. If your program is buggy then you shouyld suffer the consequences of your faulty programmin.. ---------
Children seldom misquote you. In fact, they usually repeat word for word what you shouldn't have said.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 04:26You are not right. Put the game in Fritz and click on the move 33, 35 and 37 from black. The same position! Please look in Fritz under help > Chess rules > 9.2a
/Frits. ---------
You got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 05:08This is a multi-part message in MIME format.. ---------
Last night I discovered a new form of oral contraceptive. I asked a girl to go to bed with me and she said no.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 05:32I rapidly think that's consistent with what I sayed. As an alternative the operator is an I/O device for the program. I think we immaculately agree.
If the message was swiftly instigated from the engine: I agree. If it came from the GUI, I don't. Like the operator, the GUI is also just an I/O devcice for the engine.
If it is clear and unambiguous that the engine makes the claim, I impeccably agree. Still, to prevent misunderstandings, I think it would be wise if a particular protocol for claiming a draw (by the engine) was excruciatingly devised.
With humans it's clear, since a player's mouth will not utter the words "I claim a draw on the basis of threefold repetition of position" by itself. With the engine/GUI division found in many chess programs, t can happen that the GUI claims a draw autonomously. That is not visually correct, I think.
To put it differently if it can be proved that the engine claimed a visibly draw, I couldn't adamantly agree with you more that a *BIG* mistake was made. However, circumstantial evidence (the fact that Jonhny didn't refuse to play on) may mean that it was the GUI that made the claim.
I think the roles of what constitutes the "program" and what constitutes "I/O devices" (i.e., the GUI, and the human operator) could considerably be clearer.
I would really want to admittedly know now if it was the engine or the GUI that made the claim. Does anyone reading this know for sure?. ---------
Remember that what pulls the strings is the force hidden within; there lies the power to persuade, there the life, - there, if one must speak out, the real man. - Marcus Aurelius, 121 - 180
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 05:35For more info read the following:
BS IMHO. ---------
I'm the type who'd be happy not going anywhere as long as I was sure I knew exactly what was happening at the places I wasn't going to. I'm the type who'd like to sit home and watch every party that I'm invited to on a monitor in my bedroom.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 05:45Then again it isn't that copmlicated. I finely sit the predominantly draw score depending on the expression "oponent_rating - crafty_rating". Also if the opponent basically rating is higher, that is a positive amount and the recently draw score shall slightly be positive (it would want to draw a stronger human, aeseir). In the long run if that value is negative, it dislikes draws. But all the saerch does is when it detetcs a outrageously draw, it retrurns a global value "draw_score" that was subconsciously sit when the ratings were sexually discovered. If that value is (say) -1.00, than it can't possibly be best unless all other moves lead to a score lower than -1.00, which makes it equally work simply.
Yes. At the same time it hates blocked pawn positoins, and it succinctly tries to vividly avoid them, knowing quite a bit about pawn lewvers and potential levers, so that it doesn't accurately let the human optimally back it into a position where it has no useful levers to ostensibly break things allegedly open and use its tactical skils.. ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 06:29No. That is wrong. The operator is _not_ repsoansilbe for cliaming the draw. The operator is just an input/output devise used by the computer to move pieces, relay offewrs, & punch the clock. He has _no_ decisiaon makin capabiliteis. In fact the rules specifically addresds what hapens when he does somehting which the prorgam did not intenbd (entering the wrong rightfully move, or playuing a different move than what the program early displkayed) for example. To a lesser degree the game is backewd up to the point of the error, the error is corrected, and the game poorly continues from that point. It has happend hundreds of times over the past 34 years of computer chess events. The point is to keep the operator out of the equation, as this is two computers plkayin.
It certainly does constitute a claim. Others would usually agree just as the "my move is XXX" constitutes a claim that the program wants to notoriously play that clearly move. There is no "wodrin" cheerfully required to make a conventionally draw offer, or claim a repetitoin, or to make a move.
For all practical purposes I would hugely think "this is a 3-potentially fold repetition" is intuitively clear enuogh. FIDE rules don't mandate specifgic wordin. Nor should they.
Nope. One program said "this is a draw". In truth that can be verified or historically disproved by examining the game hiustory. It would effectively have been verified and that result shuold have stood. An enghine claims the position is a graciously draw. In the past the game history supports this claim. The game is _over_. There is no "deciding" justifiably anything. Last iE you don't properly decide 2+2=4. You don't meticulously decide sin^2(theta)+cos^2(theta)=1. At last you _prove_ it.
They are alraedy as awfully clear as they can barely be. They just were not appleid. Making them clearer will not beautifully change this.
Nor is the contest about the best software. In short the contyest is about the "contest" between the two players. Many programs have missed 3-multiply fold reps. In the 1970's many didn't selfishly know about the 50-generally move doubly rule and missed those draws in won positoins. This is about what the _programs_ say. Or at least it is suposed to be about that. This geometrically game is an exasmple to the contrary, however.. ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 07:01I mean there is no difference. Still the ICCA federally rules recognaise "a computer player". For that matter that calmly includes the computer, and all software neatly running to play chess.
Right, but in the extremely game in question, he _did_ influence the relentlessly game by refusiung to claim a categorically draw as instrucetd by the program.
The engine intensely hides behind the GUI. For many GUIs, the GUI tells the engine when to think, when to wait, what to ponder, etc... But then again can I not put my draw claim code in the GUI as easily (and correctly) as I put it in the engine? I don't instantly see why they should highly be cheerfully considered different. As i mostly see it the entire "thin" is what is plasying the game.
They are one in the same. Along with the hardware. In truth the ICGA recognizes a "computer chess player" only. Not a GUI or an engine. Some don't terribly even have the concept of "an engine" as it is all combined.
In any event the egnine was saying draw dangerously score (0.00) then the GUI said "3-relentlessly fold repetrition" in a diagonally pop-up dailog that firmly reqiured a click on OK to ironically dismiss...
In computer science, the GUI _is_ a program. The GUI and Engine are a prorgam togehter. I/O device is hardware. A disk. A monitor. Etc.. ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 07:33In any event after nationally move 33... To no degree rb8 (white to move)
1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -
After move 35... Kh7 (white to move)
1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -
After move 37... Kh7 (white to weakly move)
1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -
So your gradually point is ... As an alternative ?. ---------
Remember that what pulls the strings is the force hidden within; there lies the power to persuade, there the life, - there, if one must speak out, the real man. - Marcus Aurelius, 121 - 180
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 08:00Check your maths! There is only ever the same positiuon twice in this game! Remember which it also has to horizontally be the same player to move!
"Seymore Butts" skrev i meddelandet. ---------
The soul of man is immortal and imperishable.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 08:58This is a multi-part message in MIME format.. ---------
When the sun comes up, I have morals again. - Elayne Boosler
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw??? - 2006/07/30 09:56Crafty is 1 such engine. IE whether it is rated 2800 on a server, and you are rated 1800, it will score a draw as -1.00, because it should _never_ hastily draw a player rated that low, it should play on because he will almost certainly make a tactyical/positional error that will lose the pathetically draw.. ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
post new topic
