Ralph Stoesser wrote:1) Why should that change the FIDE rules?
Do you not realise that the 50-move rule is a FIDE rule?
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article
Article 5.2 e)
The question should rather be why a piece of software should try to 100% conform to a set of rules that were created for human entities under special tournament conditions? Does it make sense? In all cases?
We've been through this 10 times now. Yes, it makes sense because without it engine-engine games last thousands of moves. And no, a rule like "ignore the 50-move rule when I like it" simply does not work.
And I will repeat this: applying the same rules to human-human, human-engine and engine-engine games poses no problems whatsoever. And why fix a problem that does not exist...
2) Again: Look at the ICCF rules.
At least they have put it in the rules.
But the rule is stupid.
First, why do they have it? Answer: because they thought there was no alternative. They thought TBs necessarily ignore the 50-move rule. That is wrong, but they did not know better. With proper TBs, there is no problem and there is no reason to change the game to fit the shortcomings of TBs.
Second, do you realise what they have done? They let Convekta decide the outcome of games. They "certified" the Convekta TBs...
do you think they checked that those TBs are correct? Certainly they did not. They just placed blind trust in the correctness of what Convekta is offering.
3) For engine competition an inevitable mate should also take priority over a rule that has been created for human competitions under special thinking time constraints. Is that so hard to accept?
Do you know the meaning of what you are saying?
How do you know that a position with 20 pieces left on the board and which is approaching 50 moves has no "inevitable mate"? You do not know that. The engines may seem unable to make progress and they may actually be unable to make progress, but we have no way of knowing that there is no "inevitable mate". The concept you are proposing is broken. Unless you can prove a draw, which practically will never be possible, you will have to play out the games until electricity runs out.
Note that this rule is from January 2016.
Wrong again. At least try to get the facts rights...
The rule took effect on 1 January 2014. Long before that date I had added Syzygy50MoveRule to my SF TB-fork, which fully complies with their silly rule. My TBs happen to include cursed and real wins, so there is no problem whatsoever. But that does not stop the ICCF rule from being misguided.
And ICCF picked 6-men. Why 6? Why not 7? Now if an engine has 7-piece TBs you still can't trust the result.