Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:23:41 06/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2003 at 02:50:49, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On June 14, 2003 at 18:00:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 13, 2003 at 12:03:58, Michael Vox wrote: >> >>>http://www.clubkasparov.ru/521772350.html?462691585533321 >>> >>>One could argue chess endgame tablebases play the endgame like god, but not this >>>article.... >>> >>>Enjoy :) >> >> >>The author is an idiot. >> >>a 5 piece endgame _counts_ the two kings. He is not counting them. >> >>He really thinks he is probing what we would call a 7 piece ending, which >>is _years_ away from reality. > > >At no point in the article does he ever do as you allege. He always counts the >pieces correctly. > >We all make mistakes, but I don't think we should therefore brand all of >ourselves "idiots". Do you? He is a GM after all, so don't you think you calling >him an "idiot" a little extreme? Perhaps "computer chess idiot" would have been better? His entire article is based on incorrect information. A 5 piece position is _always_ played perfectly by a program. But when there are more than 5 pieces on the board, perfection goes away even when probing 5 piece tables after captures. In his text, I get the impression he is saying position two should be played perfectly. Yet it has _seven_ pieces on the board. Tables work miracles, but they don't make the impossible possible, yet...
This page took 0.02 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.