Back to forum

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-03)

Thibault is there any way for the sever to link to table bases and automatically give a result? I face playing 39 moves to give mate in a queen v R + P ending

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-03 23:27:30)

Hello Andrew.

That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.

You may call the referee in a few more moves.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-04 03:04:33)

Thanks Thibault. Although saying "your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases" is a bit like saying "your opponent is not supposed to use a computer" all the table bases are a click away and everyone is going to use them.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-04 10:54:46)

There are still players here that don't even know what actually is a chess engine (true)... Even if the rules must avoid human judgement as much as possible, I think the main 'referee' should remain a human, not a program. Do we play correspondence chess for the result only ? What program could say what endgame is beautiful and worth to be played...

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-05 05:04:29)

Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 06:30:28)
calling referee

Andrew- By the way how do you call for the referee?

Scroll down in the game window in question and press call referee and follow instructions. It is located under the move notation/game score.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-05 06:40:22)

Thanks Garvin! I should add that we are spoilt (at least I feel I am!) by Thibault's magnificent work on setting up running and maintaining this site so always want to ask for more!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-05 12:42:02)

Hello again Andrew, thanks for discussing this interesting point that is a part of the discussion about the Dead Man's Defence. See this thread :


There is no way to avoid a player to last a game IMO... New rules first mean new ways to get round it and too many rules should be avoided. I still think there are some 'tricky' moves in tablebases, at least beautiful moves so it should be up to the winner to call the referee or not and it should be up to the referee to adjudicate it or not.

Maybe time will make me change my mind, but not today I think :)

Best, Thibault

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 16:07:52)

I think this adjudication argument takes on a whole new perspective now that some players have said that they dont use computer engines.

I was all for adjudication when I thought almost all players on here used engines (and hence tablebases), now I am not so sure cause some players are not using engines.