Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:44:02 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:25:14, Matthew Hull wrote: > >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. No because the table bases are identical "in" all programs. It has nothing to do with Junior, you might as well use TSCP with tb support. I can see the print on the box already: "Junior 8 - Beat the world chess champion GARRY KASPAROV" (small print on the back of the box) "BTW: Junior needed to be in the table bases to win" >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. There is no creativity or computation when it's hitting the tables. Remember Garry is also "hitting" his own tables in a way, he knows if he can enter a KRNKR endgame he has a draw. I think grandmasters do this a lot, when in trouble they try and create an endgame with good chances of drawing. To ask Garry to play against perfection is a rediculous demand, I can tell you now the tables are stronger, "hands down". What is there to prove by this, that Garry can't play perfect? You want to humiliate him because he is not God? Lame to the core. -S. >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.