TalkChess.com

Indeed, this could be a case that fits the description 'obvious draw'. It has the disadvantage that it assumes the tablebase implementation to be perfect, and that it violates the rules of Chess.

Guenther wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:24 am IMHO the TD should declare a draw, if the (materially) weaker side uses tablebases

This assumes the materially stronger side (without EGTB) won't end up in a losing position, because of avoiding the draw due to thinking it is ahead.

That isn't applicable to the Leela - Komodo game, but one could easily lose games this way, and it has probably already happened in tournaments.

So this sounds like a bad rule.

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:24 pm

Guenther wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:24 am IMHO the TD should declare a draw, if the (materially) weaker side uses tablebases

This assumes the materially stronger side (without EGTB) won't end up in a losing position, because of avoiding the draw due to thinking it is ahead.

That isn't applicable to the Leela - Komodo game, but one could easily lose games this way, and it has probably already happened in tournaments.

So this sounds like a bad rule.

I cannot imagine any scenario for 6men (you omitted the fact I talked only about 6men on the board).
The nearest possible setup might be KQvs. KRNB, but I highly doubt the latter side would sac another piece
for trying to win. (also not in R vs. PPP or RP vs. BB or whatever...)

Of course this may happen when trying to avoid 50 moves draws with more material on the board,
but I wasn't talking about such cases (which I have seen myself quite a few times in the past).

Simply require the computers to play the game for themselves - including draw offers and acceptance.
No human interference in this world 'computer' championship event.
Anyone who wants to play would have to implement the communication protocol, or not play.

Too simple?
Or is avoiding human interference to be avoided for some reason. (tinfoil hat off)

The problem is that the ICGA is set up as a democracy, and that many of the participating programmers are not in favor of this. Pretty ridiculous, but it is true.

hgm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:35 pm The problem is that the ICGA is set up as a democracy, and that many of the participating programmers are not in favor of this. Pretty ridiculous, but it is true.

Almost as ridiculous as allowing humans to affect (even change) the result between computers.
Perhaps they should rename to WCCC, to make it clear it is not an event between only computers.

hgm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:35 pm The problem is that the ICGA is set up as a democracy

I don't think so.

Guenther wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:45 pm I cannot imagine any scenario for 6men (you omitted the fact I talked only about 6men on the board).
The nearest possible setup might be KQvs. KRNB, but I highly doubt the latter side would sac another piece
for trying to win. (also not in R vs. PPP or RP vs. BB or whatever...)

I imagined something like 8/1k6/1r6/8/6PP/5P2/6K1/8 w - - 0 1

This is a tablebase draw, but if white likes connected passers a bit too much, he can lose.

hgm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:35 pm The problem is that the ICGA is set up as a democracy

A one-person democracy.

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:28 pm

hgm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:35 pm The problem is that the ICGA is set up as a democracy

I don't think so.

reasons?