Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:30:26 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 17:11:40, Matthew Hull wrote: >>The point is to stop the game, and not play against table bases, which is not >>interesting. >>Either Kasparov would draw the table bases or he would lose to the table bases, >>either way it is not interesting as we already know he is not perfect and cannot >>(maybe not) hold a draw in for instance a KRNKRR endgame. >> >>On the other hand it would also be wrong to claim that Junior won that endgame >>simply because it read from a table base (table bases won, not Junior), so the >>game is void at that moment. > > >Not really. Junior has to successfully steer the game to the won ending...just >like humans do all the time! There is no difference, correct? You are mixing things up now. If Junior can get to a won endgame then it won't be declared draw, of course Junior wins. >If the GM is ignorant where the EGTBs are not, then we want to see that. No one >complained of unfairness when progs were weak at endgames (and many still are!). > There is no fairness problem here that I can see. Pre-calculated tables are >part of chess programs. It saves CPU cycles. > >:) >Matt Okay, we have a different opinion here, I think it is ridiculous to play against the tables, sort of like racing the speed of light, you can only lose. I don't care if Garry can play these random moves correctly, it says nothing about him as a chessplayer, only that he can't remember random data as well as a computer but we already know that. -S.
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.