TalkChess.com

Dirt wrote:

syzygy wrote:It is not an opinion but a fact. There have not been any 1-1 openings so far.

Rounds 17 and 18 were the same opening and each was won by white. Not unexpected, of course.

uhhmm... game 17 is the cursed win which was wrongly adjusticated

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 😉

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.

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.

Dirt wrote:

syzygy wrote:It is not an opinion but a fact. There have not been any 1-1 openings so far.

Rounds 17 and 18 were the same opening and each was won by white. Not unexpected, of course.

Well.... I consider game 17 to be a draw

hgm 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.

I agree something like the 50-move rule is needed in computer Chess

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

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

This is too messy and inconsistent.
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.

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.

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.

Evert wrote:

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

This is too messy and inconsistent.
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 [...]

Computer tournaments have more in common with correspondence human chess than with usual human chess competitions for which the FIDE rules are made. The quality of play is better and there is not much time pressure or human exhausting.

What exactly is messy about such a rule?

10.Tablebase Adjudication

a. ICCF acknowledges some tablebases as valid for claiming win/draw/loss in positions solvable with the following tablebase: Convekta Ltd, which solves all positions with maximum 6 men. Each certified tablebase will be available on the ICCF Webserver system.

b. In case the tablebase shows a win that supersedes the 50 moves rule, the win will be awarded.

http://documents.iccf.com.s3.amazonaws. ... 1.2016.pdf

If the 50-move rule makes some end-games drawn that otherwise could be won, so what? There are plenty other rules that turn end-games into draws that would have been won if the rule did not exist. Stalemate, for example. All drawn KPK positions would have been wins if stalemate did not exist, and you would have to play until King capture. If we did not have the rule that Bishops would capture only diagonally, but they could capture to any adjacent square, you could checkmate in KBK. And if Bishops could move to the other color, many draws in end-games with unlike Bishops would become wins. And if the board was 9x9, you would not even have unlike Bishops to start with. Repetition draws are annoying too. Why not simply declare the side that causes a repetition the loser? Then even K vs K could still be won with proper play.

If we are not going to change any of those rules, why would the 50-move rule be obnoxious?