Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:41:03 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 13:03:54, Matthew Hull wrote: >>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? Not at all, there is no final answer on how to create an evaluation function, there is no factual information, it is a judgement call from the side of the programmer. > What >is such a function but tables and logic. But _designed and created_ by the programmer. >If you were to discover the secret of the PERFECT evalutaion function, you would >include it in your program, yes? I would yes, and no one would play it because they knew they would lose, it would only have "theoretic" value at best. > Then the machine supremacy over man at chess >would be achieved. The tablebase is just one step in that direction. No table bases is not a step in the direction, everything else is a step towards table base knowledge. >> >>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. Wrong, I explain below. > 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. Now you are getting it :) The creativity from the side of the programmer is needed exactly _because_ you can't search to the end. The programmer has to decide what to search, how to evaluate, what to prune and so on, _that_ is creativity. It all dies when the tables are used. >>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? No it's about winning and crushing your opponent, it is a sport. Once a problem is solved, it is no longer interesting. Playing a sport against one who cannot lose is not a sport. Did you ever seen one try and outrun the speed of light? Why not, wouldn't that be an exciting sport? >>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? For one thing, it's not Junior playing, but the endgame tables. > 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? If Junior can use precomputed tables from another program, why can't Garry use hardprintet paper from another chessplayer? Junior is just losing an advantage it should never have had in the first place. -S. >Regards, >Matt >
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.