Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:24:53 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 12:19:19, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On October 20, 2000 at 10:37:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 20, 2000 at 09:56:24, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>On October 20, 2000 at 09:26:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 20, 2000 at 01:00:07, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >>>> >>>>>> IE if my program plays Rc6 and I can prove it is correct, I am happy. >>>>>> If I can prove it is bad, even though it won the game, I am not happy. >>>>>> If I can't prove it either way, I am concerned. That was the point >>>>>> here. I want my fate in my hands, not resting on whether my >>>>>> opponent overlooks something or not. >>>>> >>>>>You are idealizing ability of risk-averse programs. If it were tic-tac-toe >>>>>you can prove move is correct. But in chess, just because some hand-put >>>>>tangle of evaluation terms gives, say, 0.3 pawns more for move A than >>>>>for other moves B, C,... you haven't proven move A is correct. It is >>>>>only "correct" within the model game (-tree) your program substitutes >>>>>for the full chess tree (where every leaf is win, draw, loss). >>>> >>>>You are making the assumption that "heuristics" cannot be "accurate". I >>>>can give you lots of examples where this is a false assumption. IE try to >>>>play a simple k and p vs k ending against Crafty. With no tablebases. >>>>It only takes a few heuristics to play this perfectly, as any good endgame >>>>book whill explain. >>> >>>That is very narrow thinking, picking out simplistic examples, the big picture, >>>the whole game is another story. Bob do you think there are many perfect games >>>played by a player ? even one ? >> >>I believe that there are a lot of games. >> >>I believe that the draw in 11 moves of kasparov was a game with no mistakes. >>I believe that weaker players played draws with no mistake even in cases when >>they did not agree to a draw in the opening. >> >>There are cases when the opening leads to an endgame that is easy to play when >>the players can play a lot of moves with no mistake. >> >>Uri > >What is the definition of _mistake_, I believe not finding the best move is a >mistake. And during the course of a game continually finding moves that are not >really bad but not best will cause you to loose a game. Only the best move is >correct, 2nd, 3rd best is a _mistake_. A game complete always finding the best I >believe has not really been played. >Wayne Tablebases can tell you that there are many best moves. If no side did a move that changes the result of the game then the game was played with no mistakes. My definition of a mistake is a move that change the result of the game assuming no mistakes. The result with no mistakes is the result based on the assumption that both sides use the 32 piece tablebases. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.