Cursed win at TCEC

[hgm]

How can the choice of openings skew results? The engines always get to play both sides of each opening, not?

[syzygy]

I find this whole controversy rather silly. Because TCEC does much worse things to changes results of their tournament by design. I am sure this was an over site, but using dubious openings to force more decisive games is by design. And skews results much more than this adjudication. But let's get all bent out of shape about an oversight by TCEC.

The thing is that it would have been so easy to correct the mistake. What went wrong did not affect game play at all. It only affected the points that were awarded after the game finished. So no need to replay or anything, just award the points correctly.

[mwyoung]

How can the choice of openings skew results? The engines always get to play both sides of each opening, not?

Because I said dubious opens. As in not sound. Depending on the strength difference of the two engines playing the opening. This will change results. This is not a criticism of TCEC. I understand why they want more decisive games.

[Dan Cooper]

None of the TCEC openings I've observed so far are dubious or crazily skewed. They are complex with no opportunity to trade into a boring endgame straight out of the gate.

[hgm]

Because I said dubious opens. As in not sound.

I still don't see why you think that would skew the results, if each engine has to play both sides. In the worst case the start position is a certain win, and then they would just get a 1-1 on that line, and it is as if the game was never played, and there were just fewer games.

[Evert]

I find this whole controversy rather silly. Because TCEC does much worse things to changes results of their tournament by design. I am sure this was an over site, but using dubious openings to force more decisive games is by design. And skews results much more than this adjudication. But let's get all bent out of shape about an oversight by TCEC.

Personally, I don't care about TCEC one way or the other. I just get annoyed (in general) by wilful ignorance.
In this particular case: with the 50 move rule in play and under perfect play by both engines (guaranteed by the use of tablebases) the relevant position is a draw. There's simply no room for discussion.

[Rochester]

In this particular case: with the 50 move rule in play and under perfect play by both engines (guaranteed by the use of tablebases) the relevant position is a draw. There's simply no room for discussion.

I say "yes". The same they deny the climate change also deny 50 mover and voted the Zaphod Beeblebrox for the president.

[Michel]

I just get annoyed (in general) by wilful ignorance.
In this particular case: with the 50 move rule in play and under perfect play by both engines (guaranteed by the use of tablebases) the relevant position is a draw. There's simply no room for discussion.

I agree. This discussion is simply ridiculous.

[tpoppins]

Hey, you leave Zaphod out of this. :)

Threads like this one are useful whatever their outcome. They tend to bring out differences in individual posters' thinking, and those who cannot handle simple logic reasoning and/or lack common sense stick out like a sore thumb. Then in other threads you have a better idea whose statements to take with a pound of salt or perhaps ignore out of hand.

[bob]

Have a look:

http://tcec.chessdom.com/archive.php?se=9&sf&ga=17

Engines showing 0.00 due to 50-move rule, but position was auto-adjudicated as an M72 TB win

Discuss

Not much discussion possible.
Both engines know that it's a draw (0.00) and play accordingly.
Suddenly the GUI decides otherwise and is clearly not following the rules of chess as implemented in the engines.
It's kinda ridiculous, but not very important.

Agreed, it should be a draw. As I posted in the TCEC chat, the adjudication should match the result if the engines had played the position out. In this game, it was a 50 move draw.

I would not agree here with Gary.
A tablebase win is a tablebase win. The position is simply won for white, so why declare it a draw? If both engines assume it is 0.0, that is only their fault they still have not implemented the much more relevant 100-move draw rule instead of the well-outdated 50-move rule. (or, what is the longest tb win without captures/promotions/pawn move?)

I am not certain what FIDE says about the 50-move/100-move draw rule, but why should engines follow FIDE? Engines are at the cutting edge of progress and progress says abovementioned position is simply a win for the stronger side. It is simply time to implement longer draw rule than 50-moves.

That should be specified in some protocol though, I agree it was not quite fair to both Houdini and SF in terms of their lack of knowledge, but a win is a win.

You are ignoring ONE important point here. The official FIDE rules of chess. And the 50 move rule is clearly spelled out and there are NO exceptions to the rule. That is the very reason SYZYGY tables exist, in fact, to allow a program to win positions that are winnable, while still playing with the 50 move rule in full effect.

This was a flawed result, any way you look at it. In a FIDE tournament it would have been declared a draw after both sides had played 50 non-reversible moves.