Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:03:54 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 12:44:02, Sune Fischer wrote: >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" Just like saying "Frenzee needed a good evaluation function to win", yes? What is such a function but tables and logic. If you were to discover the secret of the PERFECT evalutaion function, you would include it in your program, yes? Then the machine supremacy over man at chess would be achieved. The tablebase is just one step in that direction. > >>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. If that is true, then there is no creativity in any computation, period. If your machine was fast enough, it would calculate to the end of the game. It would be the same calcuation that created the tablebase. It is all computation. > >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, You mean endgame perfection. That is the goal of computerchess, striving toward perfection, toward solution. That's the point, yes? >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. The machine has it's advantages, the man has his. How is that lame? It is the nature of man/machine contest. The machine can play perfect endgames, but is a moron in closed positions. The human is brilliant in closed positions, but plays imperfect endgames. Is it not wrong to cripple one side's advantages? Regards, Matt > >-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.