Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 10:21:52 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 12:24:53, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Nonsense that is a terrible definition of no _mistake_. Both sides could make equally not best moves and the result could be _no change_. (good grief !) > >My definition of a mistake is a move that change the result of the game assuming >no mistakes. I dont think I would take exception to that. > >The result with no mistakes is the result based on the assumption that both >sides use the 32 piece tablebases. Assuming that the 32 piece tablebase generating program was without mistake :) > >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.