Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:24:19 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 20:48:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 15:13:27, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On June 17, 2003 at 14:58:23, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 17, 2003 at 14:48:10, Ricardo Gibert 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... >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>It was only the claim of the person who started the thread. >>> >>>The GM also talked about EGTB but it was not the main point of the article. >>>He did not explain that he simply had not the full 5 piece tablebases but only >>>talked about defects in the tablebases in position number 6. >> >>I know about position 6, but RH was refering to positions 1 and 2. Position 6 >>was already ably discussed by yourself elsewhere in this thread. >> >>Bob alleged the author was not taking into account that position at hand had >>more than 5 pieces. The author never does this at all and position 6 is not >>relevant to this point. >> > > >The below quote is right under the given position #2. > >quote on---------------------------------------------------------------------- >The position is drawing because White can sacrifice the bishop on c3 with >stalemate. Both engines persevere in maneuvering with the king and refuse to >accept the inevitable draw. Their evaluations: >Junior-7: - 4.86 >Fritz-7: - 5.59! >quote off----------------------------------------------------------------------- >_WHAT_ does that have to do with tablebases? Count the pieces. > 5. So what >if the program says -5.0? That was my point. It has _nothing_ to do with the >tables as given. > >nothing more, nothing less was implied by me. Just that the example position >and the complaint about the evaluations has nothing to do with endgame tables >whatsoever... > >It might be a valid criticism of a computer, but _not_ about endgame tables. He makes zero mention of EGTBs in connection with position 2. There is zero cause for you to bring up EGTBS in connection with this position. Doing this is comparable to trying to do likewise with positions 3 (10 pieces) and position 4 (19 pieces). There is no reason for you to do this all. None of these positions (2 thru 4) are about EGTBS at all. There is no ambiguity on this whatsoever. I'm totally baffled as to why you would think otherwise about position 2. > > >>> >>>It is clear that he does not understand the problem(otherwise he could say >>>incomplete 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.