Author: martin fierz
Date: 11:00:08 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 11:29:58, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 11:13:56, martin fierz wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 10:50:23, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>If the bare engine had been playing he would have had to add a few things the >>>GUI normally takes care of. >>>For UCI engines it is expected that the GUI handles certain (trivial) things. >> >>claiming a draw on 3-fold repetition is *not* a trivial thing. there are >>different possible cases: >> >>1) if your opponent avoids it, he loses >>2) if your opponent avoids it, he wins >> >>in case 2) you should of course claim the draw, because perhaps he will notice >>he could avoid it. in case 1) however, you can safely repeat the moves, and not >>claim the draw. it is *not* mandatory to claim a draw on the 3rd repetition. so >>you should basically not claim it if you might win if your opponent avoids the >>draw. > >Are you suggesting the UCI protocol should be forbidden? :) not at all. if your engine claims a draw in a position where it might still win, that is your problem. i'm saying that you can gain something by not automatically claiming a draw whenever you can. as i said, if every UCI GUI really claims a draw on 3fold repetition, then why didn't the shredder GUI claim a draw by repetition after it occurred?? as you can see, it gained something by not doing it :-) >So you're saying if we take an engine and subject it to something it wasn't >designed for it wouldn't work right? >Doh! nope. i don't know what jonny was designed for. i don't know whether the programmer even made a conscious design decision that he wouldn't put in the knowledge that a 3fold rep is a draw, because he knew the GUI would handle it. he might just not yet have added that kind of code. jonny is quite a knew program AFAIK, so perhaps he just hasn't got that stuff yet. >Not really. >The engine always plays the best moves it can find, if that is a repetition then >it's a repetition. No point in continuing because the engines sees the draw and >wants it. not at all. the evaluation of a position where you have a draw in hand should not be 0.00 but ">=0.00". that's how we humans think about such positions. the programs are just too stupid to understand that :-) you can and should have your opponent show you that he knows that it's a draw, if you have a safe draw. for humans this concept is obvious. i can't help it that it's not obvious to an alpha-beta tree searching program! cheers amrtin
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.