Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:01:57 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 17:17:15, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 16:43:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I take the comment as what I said. The original position 2 had 8 pieces. He >>complained about the evaluation. Even taking three pawns off it _still_ was >>wrong. > >What in the WORLD are you talking about?? What article are you referring to? I'm >going to this URL, which is at the top of this thread: > >http://www.clubkasparov.ru/521772350.html?462691585533321 > >What do you mean, "original position 2"? Has the article changed? "original position 2": the position given in the article. "modified position 2": the position you get if you "remove three pawns as suggested by the author." Was that too hard to understand??? >? Because the >current position 2 has 7 pieces (not 8) and if you take the pawns off (for what >reason?), you're left with KB vs. KB, which you'd think Junior and Fritz would >evaluate as a draw, and the couple sentences of discussion about it don't talk >about databases at ALL. > >-Tom On the other hand, you are correct. I meant position 1. Not position 2. So in the above replace 2 with 1 in both places. And we are back to the point. Removing three of the pawns produces a bogus evaluation. Because the tables were _not_ working. He _should_ have known that before writing an article and publishing it. If you remove three pawns, it will be in the 5 piece tables. If he really had them. He implied he did. But he didn't. And that leaves out the fact that _some_ programs can get this one right without tables, even with the original 8 pieces on the board. Mine can, for example. There is little excuse for saying something doesn't work, when it doesn't work because of a user error. Publishing it is even worse.
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.