Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:31:16 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 17:25:13, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. > >I noticed he said 7 instead of 8, but since 7 or 8 is irrelevant to the points Right. That was a mistake. I'm not calling him an idiot for that, as I explained. >>Also, correcting Bob without calling him names was obviously not working. >I don't see how this justifies the use of the term. Where is the logic? Did you >really expect to accomplish something? It made you "feel" better? What? Sure, felt great. :) >>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. > >Excellent! Can we then say that we have a match on if RH too is amenable? AFAIK, Crafty is still playing on ICC. I can match it whenever I want. I'm in the middle of implementing some stuff in my program now, but later, sure. I might even be able to get hardware similar to what Bob is using. -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.