Cursed win at TCEC

[hgm]

Actually they did write in the rules explicitly that the 50-move rule does apply.

[Thomas Lagershausen]

The position is clearly drawn by FIDE rules. So the result should be changed.

If TCEC wants to deviate from FIDE rules to count cursed wins as real wins then that should be explicitly written in the rules. But personally I'd prefer to stick with FIDE rules.

Correct.

Computerchess should be played under the gerneral chessrules according to the FIDE.

The result of the game is a draw.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Actually they did write in the rules explicitly that the 50-move rule does apply.

they also wrote that Cutechess adjudicates automatically tablebase positions. what is the main rule and what the secondary one?

I guess a won position is simply won, and the end position is won. FIDE rules concerning 50-moves draw is definitely a remnant from the past, and should be changed, the sooner the better. Also, it is not clear to me why should engine competitions follow FIDE rules. The 50-moves rule is FIDE-valid, simply because humans get tired after very long games and, most importantly, because years ago, when this specific FIDE rule was written, computer analysis still did not prove there are plentiful positions theoretically won for the stronger side without captures or pawn moves only after move 50. As seen in the wikipedia article I referenced, there are ta least several hunder theoretically won pawnless endgames after move 50, and they do happen frequently enough. (we have see this at TCEC at other times too)

So, what should be done, is for a specific engine protocol to change the 50-moves rule to a larger number, at least 100, maybe referring only to specifically known tablebase positions. The 50-moves rule migth hold true for any other case(not to make the game too long), but, in the case of a known tablebase position, the rule might be changed to 100 moves.

For example, if pawnless endgame (where primarily those positions occur) and tablebase win, 50-moves rule=2*50-moves rule. Not difficult to do, is it?

[Rochester]

They gave the SYZYGY to the engine. The SYZYGY follow the FIDE ruler.

But they gave the GAVIOTA to the GUI. The GAVIOTA don't follow the FIDE ruler.

The GAVIOTA has the wrong data. It is the bug. They must give the same to engine and to GUI.

They say they follow FIDE 50 move rule. They must give SYZYGY to the GUI.

Game is draw by TCEC rules. GAVIATO is WRONG. TCEC judge is WRONG.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

They gave the SYZYGY to the engine. The SYZYGY follow the FIDE ruler.

But they gave the GAVIOTA to the GUI. The GAVIOTA don't follow the FIDE ruler.

The GAVIOTA has the wrong data. It is the bug. They must give the same to engine and to GUI.

They say they follow FIDE 50 move rule. They must give SYZYGY to the GUI.

Game is draw by TCEC rules. GAVIATO is WRONG. TCEC judge is WRONG.

the end position is won for white. why adjudicate a won position as draw?

[Rochester]

They gave the SYZYGY to the engine. The SYZYGY follow the FIDE ruler.

But they gave the GAVIOTA to the GUI. The GAVIOTA don't follow the FIDE ruler.

The GAVIOTA has the wrong data. It is the bug. They must give the same to engine and to GUI.

They say they follow FIDE 50 move rule. They must give SYZYGY to the GUI.

Game is draw by TCEC rules. GAVIATO is WRONG. TCEC judge is WRONG.

the end position is won for white. why adjudicate a won position as draw?

Need the 72 moves for faster mate. But the FIDE and the TCEC has the 50 move ruler. The GAVIOTA has the bug: tt don't know the 50 move ruler.

You say you want change the rule. But the rule is the rule. No exception on 50 move rulers any more. Long time ago, yes. Now no.

TCEC rule not say "GUI ask to Lyudmil".

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

They gave the SYZYGY to the engine. The SYZYGY follow the FIDE ruler.

But they gave the GAVIOTA to the GUI. The GAVIOTA don't follow the FIDE ruler.

The GAVIOTA has the wrong data. It is the bug. They must give the same to engine and to GUI.

They say they follow FIDE 50 move rule. They must give SYZYGY to the GUI.

Game is draw by TCEC rules. GAVIATO is WRONG. TCEC judge is WRONG.

the end position is won for white. why adjudicate a won position as draw?

Need the 72 moves for faster mate. But the FIDE and the TCEC has the 50 move ruler. The GAVIOTA has the bug: tt don't know the 50 move ruler.

You say you want change the rule. But the rule is the rule. No exception on 50 move rulers any more. Long time ago, yes. Now no.

TCEC rule not say "GUI ask to Lyudmil".

But 'the BUG' already existed in the rules, did not it?
And it is valid for all engines, is not it?

So, I do not see a reason to change anything: bug or not bug, the end position is simply won for white and the GUI took the rigth decision, even if involuntarily.

[Branko Radovanovic]

So, I do not see a reason to change anything: bug or not bug, the end position is simply won for white and the GUI took the rigth decision, even if involuntarily.

From www.thefreedictionary.com:

adjudicate - (Chess & Draughts) (tr) chess to determine the likely result of (a game) by counting relative value of pieces, positional strength, etc [emphasis mine]

In case of draw adjudication (0.05) and win adjudication by eval (6.50), the objective is to shorten the game by assigning the outcome that is likely to happen should the game continue. The problem with this particular case is that it produced a result that was extremely unlikely to happen in absence of adjudication.

If we accept the above TFD definition as essentially correct, it follows that the GUI took the wrong decision.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

So, I do not see a reason to change anything: bug or not bug, the end position is simply won for white and the GUI took the rigth decision, even if involuntarily.

From www.thefreedictionary.com:

adjudicate - (Chess & Draughts) (tr) chess to determine the likely result of (a game) by counting relative value of pieces, positional strength, etc [emphasis mine]

In case of draw adjudication (0.05) and win adjudication by eval (6.50), the objective is to shorten the game by assigning the outcome that is likely to happen should the game continue. The problem with this particular case is that it produced a result that was extremely unlikely to happen in absence of adjudication.

If we accept the above TFD definition as essentially correct, it follows that the GUI took the wrong decision.

you said yourself: by assigning the outcome that is likely to happen should the game continue; should the game have continued, unlimited by any specific rules, most likely SF would have won the game; indeed, such endgames are very easy to win for modern top engines.

[hgm]

Actually they did write in the rules explicitly that the 50-move rule does apply.

they also wrote that Cutechess adjudicates automatically tablebase positions. what is the main rule and what the secondary one?

They did not write such adjudication could assign arbitrary results to the game that have no relation to the adjudicated position. This is sort of implied by the word 'adjudication'. If you assign a win to the bare King in KQQQK you cannot defend that by saying: "the rules stated that 5-men positions would be adjudicated".

So what happened was not adjudication. It was malfunctioning of the GUI during an attempt at adjudication.

I guess a won position is simply won, and the end position is won. FIDE rules concerning 50-moves draw is definitely a remnant from the past, and should be changed, the sooner the better.

Irrelevant. TCEC is played by FIDE rules, stupid as they might be. I'd also preferred to see that the captured pieces could be dropped back into the game, another defect of the current FIDE rules. But alas, these are the rules they play by...

So, what should be done, is for a specific engine protocol to change the 50-moves rule to a larger number, at least 100, maybe referring only to specifically known tablebase positions. The 50-moves rule migth hold true for any other case(not to make the game too long), but, in the case of a known tablebase position, the rule might be changed to 100 moves.

For example, if pawnless endgame (where primarily those positions occur) and tablebase win, 50-moves rule=2*50-moves rule. Not difficult to do, is it?

What should be done is stick to the rules as they were agreed upon. Whether better rules could be designed, or how much better they would be, is not relevant.