From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)
Organization: y
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 21:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.200201.5019@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.184033.3283@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>>...
>>
>>If I were put in a position where I had a choice between a sure loss
>>(mate in 11), and a dreadful board position (down a queen) I would 
>>consider two steps:
>>
>>(1) What is the possibility of getting a stalemate?
>>(2) There's no stalemate possible?  Ok, I resign.
>>
>
>You wouldn't be at all curious to see if your opponent also saw the mate
>in 11?  Remember, in the position that started this discussion, a GM
>looked at the position for several minutes and didn't see the mate.  

Ok well put it this way.  Someone asked ME what I would do -- and since
there is no way I would ever see a mate in 11, I just took the question 
more generally to mean -- what if I saw a tricky mate coming on the 
horizon of my reading ability?  (Not a very far away horizon, btw).

Presumably, if I were able to see mate in 11 coming, I would also be a
strong enough player to cause mate in 11 as well.  And also strong enough
to avoid having them come up so often.  I think it balances.

>Giving up lots of material transforms the position into one that any
>patzer ought to be able to win.  If the alternative is a very sharp line,
>where it is easy, even likely, that you opponent will go wrong,
>there is no reason to resign until your opponent demonstrates that he
>knows what he's doing. 

You have a point here.  So perhaps the algorithm of choice would be:

(1) Can I try and diversions and delaying tactics where, if my opp.
	doesn't see the mate in 11, he may move from a crucial square

(2) If this fails, by sacrificing my Queen, can I hope to set up a
	stalemate situation?

(3) If there is no chance for a stalement, then I will play 1 or 2
	moves along the line of strongest resistance, and if my opp.
	persists with the mate, resign.

But note that playing along a losing sharp line is still the last
thing you would want to do.  And playing too far is like slapping your
opponant in the face and saying: "I think you're an idiot, I doubt you
know how to win in a winning situation."


>Taking this to extremes - I believe that the initial position is a draw
>(the drawing window is large, the preponderance of GM games are drawn,
>etc.).  That doesn't mean that I would accept a draw offer in that
>position.  The point is to play a game, to engage in a contest - not to
>prove a theorem.

You will never be in a position to SEE this however.  It may also be
that black has a sure win.  Perhaps if you follow the complete game tree
along, there is a line of black moves where white has no possible wins.
B
That most lines result in draws says nothing about the existence of one
or two sure win lines.

But no human being will ever know what these lines are.  Even if some
computer, in a few decades or centuries, solves this problem -- no human
could ever hold this enormous game tree in their head.  So even if somewhere
someone proves that there is a "mate in 50" for black on the first move,
no human being would ever know what it was.

>There's nothing sillier than resigning, and then having to show your
>opponent the win, in the skittles room.

On the contrary.  There is nothing which better demonstrates your
skill than doing this.  Although you may not get the point for the win,
both you and your opponant are going to walk away feeling that you were
the stronger player.



Justin

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess