Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:25:14 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:14:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 11:50:37, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On January 22, 2003 at 11:43:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2003 at 11:06:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 22, 2003 at 05:12:52, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >>>> >>>>>An important rule went unnoticed here. >>>>> >>>>>The program can use the tablebase, but the game is declared draw when the >>>>>computer hits a tblbase draw! >>>>> >>>>>Not a trivial statement: imagine Kasparov gets into a position where he is in >>>>>disadvatage, he can try to enter in an endgame he knows to be drawn even not >>>>>knowing how to play it. >>>>> >>>>>A sort of compensation for the fact Deep Junior has the TB's. >>>>> >>>>>regards >>>>>Franz >>>> >>>> >>>>That is yet another example of the stupidest rule anyone could come up with. >>> >>>Sounds reasonable to me. >>>Imagine Junior shuffling round for 49 moves in tables trying to make Kaspy make >>>a mistake, pretty lame too. >> >>In the case of obvious draws, this would not happen, so your statement does not >>apply. > >It doesn't have to be obvious, could be KRNKR. > >Anyway you never know, nothing wrong with making a rule about it. Get it down on >paper so they don't break any oral gentleman agreements. > >>But what if the computer sees the draw, but Kasparov does not know for >>sure? In this situation, would it not be a bad rule? I think so very much. > >My opinion is the game is over when the program hits table bases, from there on >it can't lose a non-lost position. Only reason to continue would be to wait for >Kaspy to make a mistake, that is lame IMO. >I don't really see how Junior could take the credit for such a win anyway if it >was _only_ due to the tables. IMO Tablebases are the same as as the tables, bitboards, position.lrn, and book.lrn which are calculated and made available to a chess program about things that are knowns to work. It is just a very big table which was not created by the intuition of man, but by brute machine calculation. The whole point of man/machine competition is to see if man's intuitive powers can be overcome by computer. This rule is taking away part of a natural machine advantage. It would be like (if it were possible) taking away man's intuitive advantages in some way, because machines can't think intuitively. It misses the whole point of the competition. This is why I think the rule is very bad. Regards, Matt > >-S. > >>Matt >> >>> >>>-S.
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.