Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 11:48:10 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2003 at 23:23:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 16, 2003 at 02:50:49, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On June 14, 2003 at 18:00:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2003 at 12:03:58, Michael Vox wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.clubkasparov.ru/521772350.html?462691585533321 >>>> >>>>One could argue chess endgame tablebases play the endgame like god, but not this >>>>article.... >>>> >>>>Enjoy :) >>> >>> >>>The author is an idiot. >>> >>>a 5 piece endgame _counts_ the two kings. He is not counting them. >>> >>>He really thinks he is probing what we would call a 7 piece ending, which >>>is _years_ away from reality. >> >> >>At no point in the article does he ever do as you allege. He always counts the >>pieces correctly. >> >>We all make mistakes, but I don't think we should therefore brand all of >>ourselves "idiots". Do you? He is a GM after all, so don't you think you calling >>him an "idiot" a little extreme? > > >Perhaps "computer chess idiot" would have been better? > >His entire article is based on incorrect information. > >A 5 piece position is _always_ played perfectly by a program. But when there >are more than 5 pieces on the board, perfection goes away even when probing >5 piece tables after captures. > >In his text, I get the impression he is saying position two should be played >perfectly. Yet it has _seven_ pieces on the board. Tables work miracles, >but they don't make the impossible possible, yet... Then you get the "misimpression". All he is trying to do is point out how computers do not understand extremely obvious things (to us). He isn't trying to say that EGTBS don't work. That isn't the point of his article at all.
This page took 0.01 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.