Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 23:20:27 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 13:00:44, Robert Hyatt 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. > >The rule is illogical. It would have been better to simply say "no tablebases >allowed". That is about what this is doing. The difference between "known >tablebase draw" and "able to draw the game" is huge. I agree and is one of the things I am trying to say from above thread. Just because a position is reached and the computer sees it as being a drawn game does NOT imply that the moves made by the individual might take him out of the draw sequence into a sequence that he may actually lose. No way do these GM's understand all these end game positions to know how to guide it to a draw position and I make that statement with no lack of respect for them. Chess engines are getting stronger year by year and thats life! From another angle is there not the possibility that even without egtb's that a position is reached and the computer sees far enough into the line to see a draw position? With that scenario would we just consider the game a draw or do we play on and wait for the chance the individual makes a move that now sends him down a mate path? All part of the game and those that don't like it don't have to watch. > >> >>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. 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? > > > >What is the contest if the human GM plays "book moves" for 30 moves in a row? >I've >seen it happen at US Open/World Open events I have attended. Humans remember >things >arbitrarily deep. So setting a limit for the computer seems "artificial". Like >entering a >motorcycle in a 100 meter race, but saying "no air in those tires..." > >However, this leads back to the issue of trying to "equalize" a human and a >computer >so that the match is "fair". The concept is so badly flawed it doesn't merit >discussion, >because it is _impossible_ to do. > > >> >> >>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 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.