Author: Dux Kazer
Date: 09:27:56 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:06:37, Matthew Hull wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 11:58:05, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: > >> >>Bob, >> >>It shows me the abality of GK to negoiate a rule very favorable to him. >>It is not at all certain that GK could, over the board, be certain of a >>draw in a known draw position as determined with tablebases with, at least all >>5 piece endings, and most likely some six piece endings. Now, in those >>positions the game will end in a draw, which, in my view, is correct. This >>does not address the situation where DJ sees a tablebase draw in its search and, >>if it's losing trys to steer the game to that position. >> >>I like the rule. I do not see any contest between machine and man where >>the machine looks up its move in a table, and waits for the human to make >>a mistake. > > >It is possible the machine could see a tablebase draw which a human would not >know how to "solve" and thus lose the drawn position. The human would deserve >the loss. This is the point of the man/machine contest. > Oh Yes... but let the machine play without the tablebases and it will lose even simple knight vs rook draw for sure, not to say KRP vs KR.. >If the possibility of a game like this is so remote, then why have the rule in >the first place? > >It is a bad rule, IMO. > >Matt > > >>That the machine has a huge opening book is somewhat similar, >>but as GK has a tremendous knowledge of openings it seems fair that the >>machine have a similar knowledge. >> >>We know nothing about the opening book for DJ. And, apparently, there are no >>rules for the opening book. I would like to see a rule that limits DJ's >>opening book to a set number of moves, like 10-15 moves. As far as we know >>DJ's book may be all games played by all strong players who have ever played the >>game through to the final move. Where is the contest if the machine >>just looks up its move in a table? >> >> >>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.
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.