Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:24:53 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 14:01:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 this one is too easy. IE I will play kn vs kr without tables. I'll also play KQ vs KR without tables playing either side, knowing crafty can win this ending _easily_ without tables at all. I don't think it much of a challenge to avoid losing kr vs kn. Any decent search depth will find the simple tactics where the knight is lost. > > >> >>> >>>>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.