Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 13:58:45 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 15:05:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 13:40:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>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 >> >>I don't know why this conversation is still going on. Bob, you're being an >>idiot. The position in the diagram has 8 pieces, right? Then there's the > >I don't see how it helps at all to say, "Bob, you're being an idiot." In fact, >as RH has demonstrated himself (see >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?301083), this sort of thing is >extremely risky. > >For instance, how you like it if RH came back with a challenge matching his >"idiocy" against your "cleverness" by playing a match between Crafty and Stobor? >None of us are perfect. Unforntunately this includes me, which I'm reminded of >all too often. Well, what would be a better word? Okay, miscounting (thinking there are 7 pieces in the first position instead of 8) is a mistake. Not reading a key part of the article is a mistake. Calling the guy who wrote the article an idiot because of those mistakes is lame but I wouldn't say it's idiotic. Continuing to assert that the article was talking about a 7-man position after being corrected explicitly TWICE is idiotic. Also, correcting Bob without calling him names was obviously not working. I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not sure how Stobor would do vs. Crafty right now, as I haven't really worked hard on my program for several years now, but Stobor has been stronger than Crafty in the past so don't be so sure that Bob is more "clever" than me in that regard. -Tom
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.