Author: Dux Kazer
Date: 23:18:46 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 21:24:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I don´t think is that simple.... i know good programmers have special code to handle that kind of ending but at least the engine has to think for itself and of course that is time consuming (so human can use that time for himself right?) and there is always some chance in that case.. i have seen Crafty beaten Fritz many times in Rook vs Knight (of course without table) and not to say so many blitz game where human confuse the machine to go for a dead draw KRPP vs KR!. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>>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.