Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:44:22 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 16:58:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 15:05:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>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 >> >>I don't see how it helps at all to say, "Bob, you're being an idiot." In fact, >>as RH has demonstrated himself (see >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?301083), this sort of thing is >>extremely risky. >> >>For instance, how you like it if RH came back with a challenge matching his >>"idiocy" against your "cleverness" by playing a match between Crafty and Stobor? >>None of us are perfect. Unforntunately this includes me, which I'm reminded of >>all too often. > >Well, what would be a better word? Okay, miscounting (thinking there are 7 >pieces in the first position instead of 8) is a mistake. Not reading a key part >of the article is a mistake. Calling the guy who wrote the article an idiot >because of those mistakes is lame but I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Continuing to >assert that the article was talking about a 7-man position after being corrected >explicitly TWICE is idiotic. > >Also, correcting Bob without calling him names was obviously not working. > >I call 'em like I see 'em. > >I'm not sure how Stobor would do vs. Crafty right now, as I haven't really >worked hard on my program for several years now, but Stobor has been stronger >than Crafty in the past so don't be so sure that Bob is more "clever" than me in >that regard. > >-Tom We only count reality, not dreams. :)
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.