Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 20:03:21 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 20:19:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 21:24:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>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. >> > >I suggest you re-read the article. Before the _first_ position he mentions >endgame tables and says "the computer gets it wrong even when using the 5 >piece tables." That's odd, we must be reading a different article. In the one I'm looking at, here's the text before "Position #1": "Oops! Computers Can Be Blind by Sergey Shipov It is a well-known fact that endgames are a weak spot of computers. Sergei Shipov selected several examples to illustrate this point." -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.