Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:22:01 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 13:03:54, Matthew Hull wrote: >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? No, both. that is whay I said a gentlemen deal. Did you actually read the rules? Miguel > >Regards, >Matt > > > > >> >>-S. >> >>>This is why I think the rule is very bad. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Matt >>> >>>> >>>>-S. >>>> >>>>>Matt >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-S.
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.