Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:16:54 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 23:03:21, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>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
After seeing this banter back and forth, I went and saw the article. First, it's
true that Shipov mentions removing 3 pawns making it a 5-piece endgame. Second,
it is completely clear that Shipov's setup isn't reading the tablebases at all.
There are 2 positions in which he gets no tablebase verdict, just some engine
evaluation. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the tablebases.
Albert
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.