Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 12:13:27 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 14:58:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 14:48:10, Ricardo Gibert 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... >> >>Then you get the "misimpression". All he is trying to do is point out how >>computers do not understand extremely obvious things (to us). He isn't trying to >>say that EGTBS don't work. That isn't the point of his article at all. > >It was only the claim of the person who started the thread. > >The GM also talked about EGTB but it was not the main point of the article. >He did not explain that he simply had not the full 5 piece tablebases but only >talked about defects in the tablebases in position number 6. I know about position 6, but RH was refering to positions 1 and 2. Position 6 was already ably discussed by yourself elsewhere in this thread. Bob alleged the author was not taking into account that position at hand had more than 5 pieces. The author never does this at all and position 6 is not relevant to this point. > >It is clear that he does not understand the problem(otherwise he could say >incomplete tablebases). > >Uri
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.