Well, this particular dragon yugo attack line is know to be better for white. The lines with black replying h5 to h4 are more balanced.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:guess the starting position is simply won for white, so the Dragon system might be altogether a bust, unlike other kingside fianchettoe lines
Cursed win at TCEC
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:03 pm
Re: fortress_draw_rule
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:28 am
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
Just wait a little until cutechess can handle 6 piece tb adjucation and that problem will disappear. There is already a pull request under review.MikeB wrote:Good point , it does sound a whole lot simpler just to follow the FIDE rules that govern the way most people play chess...why start start adjudicating draws (what people would consider to be a draw) as wins in the first place?syzygy wrote:But then you get the problem that 50-move rule draws that happen with 6 pieces still on the board are thought by the engine to be a win. But these 6-piece positions are not TB-adjudicated by TCEC, so they have to be won over the board and that will not work (even with the 50-move rule disabled the losing engine will make sure to keep the draw).MikeB wrote:Actually Stockfish has that knowledge, all its need is that little check box to be unchecked to false. If the operator knew the 50 move rule was not going to follow FIDE 50 move rule, the setting should, have been false. So either way , it is operator error.
So what TCEC would need are 5-piece tables that ignore the 50-move rule, and custom-built 6-piece tables that do take into account the 50-move rule as long as the 50 moves happen before a conversion to a 5-piece position. This is not a very satisfactory situation.
The same applies to ICCF but with 5 replaced by 6: they need 6-piece tables that ignore the 50-move rule and custom-built 7-piece tables that take into account the 50-move rule as long as the 50 moves happen before a conversion to a 6-piece position.
Using a faulty automated adjudicator is a little absurd in the first place.
It may be technically easier to follow the 50 move draw rule in all cases, but many people feel that would be against the main objectives of the game of chess (See article 1.1 - 1.3 FIDE rules for reference). If one side can prove to have an unavoidable checkmate, the game should not end with a draw. It simply feels wrong. Checkmates should take precedence.
-
- Posts: 5566
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
But you seem to be alone in this: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62175Ralph Stoesser wrote:If one side can prove to have an unavoidable checkmate, the game should not end with a draw. It simply feels wrong. Checkmates should take precedence.
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
Some people commenting in this thread must apply for jobs as lawyers or jurors in some countryside court. This passion for details of legalistic matters and the deepness of these details make me nostalgic of Rybka/Vasik threads.
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:28 am
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
That one is about the clock, right? No flag fell issues in what we talk about here, so no need to mention that the clock should take priority in such a case. That of course feels absolutely right for most people, because we all know that our time on earth is limited. When our time is over we are not able to complete tasks in the future. That's somehow logical....syzygy wrote:But you seem to be alone in this: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62175Ralph Stoesser wrote:If one side can prove to have an unavoidable checkmate, the game should not end with a draw. It simply feels wrong. Checkmates should take precedence.
FIDE is not the ruler for engine competitions. FIDE rules are made for humans exclusively. No piece of software will ever be able to follow article 4.1, because software neither have two hands nor one. So we are somewhat free to do what we want with the FIDE rule set. That seems to be a new message for some people, and for sure it is a good message, so I think it's worth to mention it again here.
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:28 am
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
Laskos wrote:Some people commenting in this thread must apply for jobs as lawyers or jurors in some countryside court. This passion for details of legalistic matters and the deepness of these details make me nostalgic of Rybka/Vasik threads.
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
I'm fine with that as long as that is well communicated in advance and understood, and obviously the appropriate settings , i.e, "setoption name Syzygy50MoveRule value false" are used and it is obvious they were not.Ralph Stoesser wrote:Just wait a little until cutechess can handle 6 piece tb adjucation and that problem will disappear. There is already a pull request under review.MikeB wrote:Good point , it does sound a whole lot simpler just to follow the FIDE rules that govern the way most people play chess...why start start adjudicating draws (what people would consider to be a draw) as wins in the first place?syzygy wrote:But then you get the problem that 50-move rule draws that happen with 6 pieces still on the board are thought by the engine to be a win. But these 6-piece positions are not TB-adjudicated by TCEC, so they have to be won over the board and that will not work (even with the 50-move rule disabled the losing engine will make sure to keep the draw).MikeB wrote:Actually Stockfish has that knowledge, all its need is that little check box to be unchecked to false. If the operator knew the 50 move rule was not going to follow FIDE 50 move rule, the setting should, have been false. So either way , it is operator error.
So what TCEC would need are 5-piece tables that ignore the 50-move rule, and custom-built 6-piece tables that do take into account the 50-move rule as long as the 50 moves happen before a conversion to a 5-piece position. This is not a very satisfactory situation.
The same applies to ICCF but with 5 replaced by 6: they need 6-piece tables that ignore the 50-move rule and custom-built 7-piece tables that take into account the 50-move rule as long as the 50 moves happen before a conversion to a 6-piece position.
Using a faulty automated adjudicator is a little absurd in the first place.
It may be technically easier to follow the 50 move draw rule in all cases, but many people feel that would be against the main objectives of the game of chess (See article 1.1 - 1.3 FIDE rules for reference). If one side can prove to have an unavoidable checkmate, the game should not end with a draw. It simply feels wrong. Checkmates should take precedence.
-
- Posts: 5566
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
I am looking forward to the discussion after a game has ended in a 50-move draw with 6 pieces left on the board which is shown to be a "win" by TBs. I guess such a draw will have to be manually corrected to a win?MikeB wrote:I'm fine with that as long as that is well communicated in advance and understood, and obviously the appropriate settings , i.e, "setoption name Syzygy50MoveRule value false" are used and it is obvious they were not.Ralph Stoesser wrote:It may be technically easier to follow the 50 move draw rule in all cases, but many people feel that would be against the main objectives of the game of chess (See article 1.1 - 1.3 FIDE rules for reference). If one side can prove to have an unavoidable checkmate, the game should not end with a draw. It simply feels wrong. Checkmates should take precedence.
I am also looking forward to the discussion after a game has ended in a 50-move draw with 7 pieces left on the board which is shown to be a "win" by the Lomonosov TBs. I guess such a draw will have to be manually corrected as well?
I am even more looking forward to the discussion after a game has ended in a 50-move draw with 10 pieces left on the board which is shown to be a "win" by running finalgen for two weeks. I guess such a draw will have to be manually corrected too?
The "unavoidable checkmate" concept is simply broken.
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:28 am
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
I can't see why it should be broken. It's not the question if someone may be able to show that a checkmate is unavoidable. That someone has to be the engine that plays, and as long as the adjucation tb is state of the art there will be no problem. I would call that progress.
-
- Posts: 5566
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
It has to be the engine that plays?Ralph Stoesser wrote:I can't see why it should be broken. It's not the question if someone may be able to show that a checkmate is unavoidable. That someone has to be the engine that plays, and as long as the adjucation tb is state of the art there will be no problem. I would call that progress.
In game 17, both engines were able to show that the position was a draw.
How will you modify your condition now to make it fit your ideal?
In the time loss example white was able to show that the position was a win. Why should he not have been awarded the win?
And do you realise that you are skewing the game rules in favour of the side making the prediction that it can mate (no matter the time it would take him or the number of moves it would take him) over the side that actually tries to play out the win over the board (but then runs into a 50-move draw or runs out of time)?