You could also adjudicate this position as a win for white:
[d]7q/8/5k2/8/8/4K3/8/8 w - - 0 1
After all, it is a forced win in 3 (1. Kd4! Kg7 2.Ke5! Kf6 3.Kxf6 Qxf6 1-0). It would be a bit strange to do that in a game of orthodox Chess, however. Even if you announced that 3-men positions would be adjudicated.
Cursed win at TCEC
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 27796
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
-
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
Rounds 17 and 18 were the same opening and each was won by white. Not unexpected, of course.syzygy wrote:It is not an opinion but a fact. There have not been any 1-1 openings so far.
Deasil is the right way to go.
-
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:33 am
- Location: Regensburg, Germany
- Full name: Guenther Simon
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
uhhmm... game 17 is the cursed win which was wrongly adjusticatedDirt wrote:Rounds 17 and 18 were the same opening and each was won by white. Not unexpected, of course.syzygy wrote:It is not an opinion but a fact. There have not been any 1-1 openings so far.
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: fortress_draw_rule
Yea it pretty funny all over a 1/2 point between two chess engines and the only thing at stake is bragging rights. we need to move on. Oh. .. and do me a favor , next time try to get it right 😉
-
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Re: fortress_draw_rule
The fundamental unresolved issue has been around a long time, and it will be around long after tcec. What it comes down to is why should computer engines that see a mate in 51+ moves be penalized and forced to accept a draw. The 50 move rule was established solely for humans and it was established long before computer engines. Should it be changed to accommodate technological progress and if so, how?
As for this tournament and superfinal itself, no big deal, but the incident illustrates the bigger problem that is unresolved.
As for this tournament and superfinal itself, no big deal, but the incident illustrates the bigger problem that is unresolved.
-
- Posts: 27796
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: fortress_draw_rule
Actually something like the 50-move rule is essential in computer Chess, even more so than in human Chess. Humans will tire, and eventually agree a draw. Engines would continue for many millions of moves.
-
- Posts: 5566
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm
Re: Cursed win at TCEC
Well.... I consider game 17 to be a drawDirt wrote:Rounds 17 and 18 were the same opening and each was won by white. Not unexpected, of course.syzygy wrote:It is not an opinion but a fact. There have not been any 1-1 openings so far.
-
- Posts: 12038
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:50 pm
Re: fortress_draw_rule
I agree something like the 50-move rule is needed in computer Chesshgm wrote:Actually something like the 50-move rule is essential in computer Chess, even more so than in human Chess. Humans will tire, and eventually agree a draw. Engines would continue for many millions of moves.
eg. 50 moves except where there is a tablebase win. this will cover the 1000 move win for 8 piece tablebase which we may have in 7 years, but will disallow pointless prolongation of the game where there is no tablebase win
-
- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:42 am
- Location: NL
Re: fortress_draw_rule
This is too messy and inconsistent.duncan wrote: eg. 50 moves except where there is a tablebase win. this will cover the 1000 move win for 8 piece tablebase which we may have in 7 years, but will disallow pointless prolongation of the game where there is no tablebase win
There was an exception in FIDE chess, and it was removed because as time goes on there become more and more exceptions and the rule becomes unwieldy.
I think it's better (and easier) to just accept that under the rules of chess there are some positions that cannot be won under the 50-move rule, that could be won otherwise. Variants such as Makruk and Sittuyin have "counting" rules that are in some ways similar to the 50 move rule (but more punishing). These alter the nature of the game in end games, making positions that could be trivially won drawn instead. It's the nature of the game.
I suppose one could have an option to ignore or change the 50 move rule, if desired. That way people can decide to ignore it (or change it) if they want for their own games/tournaments. That's a different discussion though.
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: fortress_draw_rule
Some might look at engines simply looking up moves from tablebases as form of cheating and say just ban tablebases from engine tournaments. Likewise with opening books if you really want to know the strongest engine. Agree with HGM , we should follow the human rules and if they change we change. End of story. But I can appreciate different view points and one can always run his tournament his way. That's what TCEC is doing and there's nothing wrong with , it's his tournament ;>). Likewise , you can run your tournaments anyway you want. But there no need to change the rules.Norm Pollock wrote:The fundamental unresolved issue has been around a long time, and it will be around long after tcec. What it comes down to is why should computer engines that see a mate in 51+ moves be penalized and forced to accept a draw. The 50 move rule was established solely for humans and it was established long before computer engines. Should it be changed to accommodate technological progress and if so, how?
As for this tournament and superfinal itself, no big deal, but the incident illustrates the bigger problem that is unresolved.