Checkmate In Zero

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23615
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by hgm » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:31 pm

Christopher Conkie wrote:If you want to build a chess engine, it should know the rules. If it doesn't you would be lazy.......
That is just one philosophy. I adhere to another one, namely that you should please the user whenever you can. Machine should be a slave of the mind, rather than the mind a slave of the machine. Otherwise it qualifies as pedantic.

If a user wants to set up a position with 32 black Bishops, why should the engine spoil his fun?

User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6388
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by michiguel » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:37 pm

hgm wrote:
Christopher Conkie wrote:If you want to build a chess engine, it should know the rules. If it doesn't you would be lazy.......
That is just one philosophy. I adhere to another one, namely that you should please the user whenever you can. Machine should be a slave of the mind, rather than the mind a slave of the machine. Otherwise it qualifies as pedantic.

If a user wants to set up a position with 32 black Bishops, why should the engine spoil his fun?
That is true, as long as the engine can handle it (going beyond the chess rules). That is no pedantry, it is knowing the limitations and the underlying assumptions. One thing is certain, whatever is done, the engine should never crash.

Miguel

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:38 pm

hgm wrote:
Christopher Conkie wrote:If you want to build a chess engine, it should know the rules. If it doesn't you would be lazy.......
That is just one philosophy. I adhere to another one, namely that you should please the user whenever you can. Machine should be a slave of the mind, rather than the mind a slave of the machine. Otherwise it qualifies as pedantic.

If a user wants to set up a position with 32 black Bishops, why should the engine spoil his fun?
Don't get me wrong. Illegality is our business. We love engines that don't know the rules. We can map them. Everyone (I would hope) wants their engine to please the user.

We deal in the ones that surprise the user.......

;)

Chris

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23615
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by hgm » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:39 pm

Christopher Conkie wrote:The 2006 versions of micro-Max don't want to play.
This might be because it does not support a command to set up a position at all, or it was buggy. So it might simply play e2e4 from that position, refused by the GUI. There might not even a public version of Joker that supports setting up a position. I only implemented setboard for the benefit of Joker80, after I had already stopped developing Joker.
Then again the purpose of micro-Max was to be small and that hardly facilitates building the rules in.
Actually it has always had move-legality checking, because one way to make it small was to use 'exit from level 1' to play user moves by the in-lined MakeMove of the Search.

However, playing with two Kings does not violate any FIDE rule. AFAIK there are no rules for setting up positions.

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:43 pm

Then again the purpose of micro-Max was to be small and that hardly facilitates building the rules in.
Actually it has always had move-legality checking, because one way to make it small was to use 'exit from level 1' to play user moves by the in-lined MakeMove of the Search.
However, playing with two Kings does not violate any FIDE rule. AFAIK there are no rules for setting up positions.
:)

FIDE? rules?

I think I should try that at the next chess tournament.

I will (if I get to that end of the board) promote to a King.

I will feel like a cat with two lives.

:)

Chris
Last edited by Christopher Conkie on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23615
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by hgm » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:43 pm

michiguel wrote:That is true, as long as the engine can handle it (going beyond the chess rules). That is no pedantry, it is knowing the limitations and the underlying assumptions. One thing is certain, whatever is done, the engine should never crash.
Sure, I absolutely agree with that. The 'whenever you can' was an essential part of my statement. In Joker I do generate error messages for multiple Kings or no Kings, because the code assumes there is exactly one in its check and pin test and would even crash if there are none. But it has a piece list with room for 32 pieces per side, and I only let it complain if you tray to set up more than 32, as otherwise it would have no problem.

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:44 pm

Christopher Conkie wrote:Then again the purpose of micro-Max was to be small and that hardly facilitates building the rules in.
Actually it has always had move-legality checking, because one way to make it small was to use 'exit from level 1' to play user moves by the in-lined MakeMove of the Search.
However, playing with two Kings does not violate any FIDE rule. AFAIK there are no rules for setting up positions.
:)

FIDE? rules?

I think I should try that at the next chess tournament.

I will (if I get to that end of the board) promote to a King.

I will feel like a cat with two lives.

:)

Chris
Last edited by Christopher Conkie on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23615
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by hgm » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:45 pm

Christopher Conkie wrote:I will feel like a cat with two lives.
Actually that is wrong, because FIDE rules do specify you lose if you have to leave any King in check. So is is an extra liability, not an asset!

Promoting to King does violate FIDE rules, btw. But in Spartan Chess the Spartans are allowed to do that, of course (as long as they don't have two Kings already).

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:47 pm

hgm wrote:
Christopher Conkie wrote:I will feel like a cat with two lives.
Actually that is wrong, because FIDE rules do specify you lose if you have to leave any King in check. So is is an extra liability, not an asset!
Well in computer chess it is an asset for us. I am sure you know what I mean. People should police themselves. I have great faith in them. they are not stupid.

:)

Chris

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Checkmate In Zero

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:56 pm

hgm wrote:
Christopher Conkie wrote:I will feel like a cat with two lives.
Actually that is wrong, because FIDE rules do specify you lose if you have to leave any King in check. So is is an extra liability, not an asset!

Promoting to King does violate FIDE rules, btw. But in Spartan Chess the Spartans are allowed to do that, of course (as long as they don't have two Kings already).
The point is that each engine plays a specific way, interprets the rules their way.

These to us are important, until that is people deliberately mimic the ways in which their engines interpret positions to throw us off the track.

You should see the chart we have created. It would make you smile. It would certainly allow you to visualise the origins of things.

:)

Chris

Post Reply