Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:08:26 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 13:15:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 16, 2003 at 23:46:15, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On June 16, 2003 at 23:23:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>Nevertheless for position 1, after 1.Bd1 Kg8 2.h7+ Kxh7 3.h6 Kg8 4.h7+ Kxh7 5.h5 >>Kg8 6.h6 Kh8 7.h7 Kxh7 there are only _five_ chessmen on the board. So if he has >>tablebases enabled, then what _should_ the engines return? I don't have 5-men >>tablebases available, so I don't know. Is his analysis incorrect, or is he >>pointing out a bug or setup problem with Junior and Fritz? > >The problem is this: If the position _starts_ off with 5 pieces, it will >play _perfectly_. If it starts off with more, it might not. IE it might Here is the relevant part of another post(without a part that can be deleted because of personal attack and with the words "from the original link" to prevent another conversation. I don't know why this conversation is still going on. The position in the diagram has 8 pieces, right? Then there's the comment from the original link: "It's funny that even if we sweep away three white pawns, both engines evaluate White's position as winning." -Tom My comments: I agree that there is no need to continue the conversation because it is clear based on the original link that the engines were wrong in tablebases position and it is also clear that they did not use the full 5 piece tablebases otherwise the problems of not finding draw score even in draw tablebases positions could be solved. I know that at least Junior does not use swindle mode and swindle mode is impossible because swindle mode means that at least one of the engines can evaluate the position correctly Uri
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.