Re: fortress_draw_rule
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:42 pm
The 50-move rule is a FIDE rule. Proposing not to apply it is changing the FIDE rules.
I don't buy the 'more interesting' argument. The games would still be adjudicated as soon as a tablebase position is reached. They would just receive a different score. What is interesting about that?
Unless you consider it interesting to see if engines would fall into the trap you set up for them by lying about the rules, or, by sheer coincidence would manage to avoid it. If that sort of suspense is the point, we could also before each game designate a randomly chosen piece other than King as the royal piece, and adjudicate an immediate win for whichever side captures that.
Note that this game would never have become a cursed win if Houdini had known that cursed wins would be counted as wins, rather than draws. Abolishing the 50-move rule would not have made any difference when the engines would have been aware of it, rather than being tricked. It still would have ended as a draw. So how would that have been more interesting?
I don't buy the 'more interesting' argument. The games would still be adjudicated as soon as a tablebase position is reached. They would just receive a different score. What is interesting about that?
Unless you consider it interesting to see if engines would fall into the trap you set up for them by lying about the rules, or, by sheer coincidence would manage to avoid it. If that sort of suspense is the point, we could also before each game designate a randomly chosen piece other than King as the royal piece, and adjudicate an immediate win for whichever side captures that.
Note that this game would never have become a cursed win if Houdini had known that cursed wins would be counted as wins, rather than draws. Abolishing the 50-move rule would not have made any difference when the engines would have been aware of it, rather than being tricked. It still would have ended as a draw. So how would that have been more interesting?