Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:22:44 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 13:27:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 20:43:27, Robert Hyatt 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 >>>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 > >What makes you think that? He starts out with 8 pieces, gives a line that >removes 3 pieces, and says "Even though there are only five chesspieces on the >board..." Is it just an incredible coincidence that 8 - 3 = 5 and he refers to a >position with 5 pieces, although he must really mean 8 pieces? Sure, Bob. > >-Tom One day you'll learn to (a) get the chip off your shoulder; (b) read with comprehension; (c) discuss with an open mind. It is pretty clear what he is saying in the article. In one case a program screws up with 5 pieces on the board. And it screws up with more than 5 pieces on the board. It will _never_ screw up with 5 pieces on the board if things are set up right. If they aren't, he should not be complaining, he should be off fixing his setup problem. But the original statement _still_ stands. He doesn't know squat about how computers play chess, with or without endgame tables. That hasn't changed one iota.
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.