Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:27:27 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 20:43:27, Robert Hyatt 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 >>comment: >> >>"It's funny that even if we sweep away three white pawns, both engines evaluate >>White's position as winning." >> >>Bob, can you please tell the audience what 8 - 3 is? >> > >However, he is complaining about the _original_ position. And when you "sweep What makes you think that? He starts out with 8 pieces, gives a line that removes 3 pieces, and says "Even though there are only five chesspieces on the board..." Is it just an incredible coincidence that 8 - 3 = 5 and he refers to a position with 5 pieces, although he must really mean 8 pieces? Sure, Bob. -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.