Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:01:09 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 13:02:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 12:27:56, Dux Kazer wrote: > >>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.. > >Not necessarily. Some programs can play krp vs kr pretty well without tables. >I have >special code to handle just this case, for example. I'm sure others do too. > >I'd play _anybody_ KR vs KN with crafty having the KN side... and not expect to >lose. Another challenge to human chess players. Hopefully someone bites. I'd like to see this one too! Marvelous. Rolf Tueschen > >> >>>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.