Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:43:27 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 13:40:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 13:15:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 16, 2003 at 23:46:15, Keith Evans wrote: >> >>>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... >>> >>>Nevertheless for position 1, after 1.Bd1 Kg8 2.h7+ Kxh7 3.h6 Kg8 4.h7+ Kxh7 5.h5 >>>Kg8 6.h6 Kh8 7.h7 Kxh7 there are only _five_ chessmen on the board. So if he has >>>tablebases enabled, then what _should_ the engines return? I don't have 5-men >>>tablebases available, so I don't know. Is his analysis incorrect, or is he >>>pointing out a bug or setup problem with Junior and Fritz? >> >>The problem is this: If the position _starts_ off with 5 pieces, it will >>play _perfectly_. If it starts off with more, it might not. IE it might > >I don't know why this conversation is still going on. Bob, you're being an >idiot. The position in the diagram has 8 pieces, right? Then there's the >comment: > >"It's funny that even if we sweep away three white pawns, both engines evaluate >White's position as winning." > >Bob, can you please tell the audience what 8 - 3 is? > However, he is complaining about the _original_ position. And when you "sweep away 3" the engine is _not_ going to be wrong there as it will be an instant TB hit. Again, I don't see what he is complaining about unless it is an improper setup, but for any test he'd care to run, I can produce _correct_ 5 piece results with no nonsense at all. Beyond 5, there are _no_ guarantees of any kind for _any_ engine around, which is also well-known, even when transpositions into the 5-piece files happen early on. Mistakes are _still_ possible until we can search all possible transpositions into the 5-piece files, and that can be computationally intractable for many positions. And complaining about it is silly when it is well known and understood by computer chess folks. >-Tom
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.