Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:24:48 01/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 21:00:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 23, 2003 at 10:44:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 23, 2003 at 10:38:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 23, 2003 at 02:18:46, Dux Kazer wrote: >>> >>>>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!. >>> >>>Fritz is a bad example. KR vs KN is only won by zugzwang, when the weaker side >>>makes a mistake. Fritz is very susceptible to zugzwang positions because of the >>>null-move >>>search. >>> >>>I have seen crafty win more than one blitz game KR vs KN without tables. But >>>only blitz >>>games. At longer time controls, it simply isn't winnable unless the opponent >>>makes an outright >>>blunder. There are a "few" deep wins that a table might spot. But against a >>>human, I don't >>>think kr vs kn can be won by the kr side, without the tables, and even with the >>>tables, you can >>>look at the krkn.tbs file to see that the draws outnumber the wins by a huge >>>margin. >>> >>>KQ vs KR is another example that a program can handle simply and almost >>>perfectly with >>>a minimal search. >> >>In both cases you need evaluation that Movei of today does not have. >> >>In KR vs KN you need to know to keep the knight clode to the king and in KQ vs >>KR you need to know that the stronger side needs to reduce the distance between >>the kings. >> >>Uri > >I can only quote what my program can do. IE it can win KQ vs KR against a >program with tables, with just one second per move... The knowledge required >is _really_ modest. Just two boring questions as usual. :) 1) Could you explain with words how this is possible now? I mean real champs didn't know how to solve it and you do without tables? Or did you hide the tables in micro format? <g> 2) Because you said "just 1 minute", let me ask you if you believe in the myth that by each generation (each year) we win a 2x hardware speed and therefore after a couple of years we have (allegedly) the strange effect that we could play the earlier tournament time mode in say 0,6 seconds for the whole (sic!) game. There is a debate in Germany and I also wrote aboute it in http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/SmallTalk.html Could you give a few factors such a maths above perhaps had overseen/forgotten? I want to quote you. Thanks. Rolf Tueschen
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.