Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:19:58 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 21:24:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On June 17, 2003 at 20:48:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 17, 2003 at 15:13:27, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >> >>The below quote is right under the given position #2. >> >>quote on---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>The position is drawing because White can sacrifice the bishop on c3 with >>stalemate. Both engines persevere in maneuvering with the king and refuse to >>accept the inevitable draw. Their evaluations: >>Junior-7: - 4.86 >>Fritz-7: - 5.59! >>quote off----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>_WHAT_ does that have to do with tablebases? Count the pieces. > 5. So what >>if the program says -5.0? That was my point. It has _nothing_ to do with the >>tables as given. >> >>nothing more, nothing less was implied by me. Just that the example position >>and the complaint about the evaluations has nothing to do with endgame tables >>whatsoever... >> >>It might be a valid criticism of a computer, but _not_ about endgame tables. > > >He makes zero mention of EGTBs in connection with position 2. There is zero >cause for you to bring up EGTBS in connection with this position. Doing this is >comparable to trying to do likewise with positions 3 (10 pieces) and position 4 >(19 pieces). There is no reason for you to do this all. None of these positions >(2 thru 4) are about EGTBS at all. There is no ambiguity on this whatsoever. I'm >totally baffled as to why you would think otherwise about position 2. > I suggest you re-read the article. Before the _first_ position he mentions endgame tables and says "the computer gets it wrong even when using the 5 piece tables." If he mentions tables in position one, then it is reasonable that he is making the _same_ criticism in position two. And since position 1 has more than 5 pieces, as does position 2, the context is the _same_. And it is equally wrong in _both_. If you don't think this is about tables, how do you handle the fact that he _explicitly_ mentions tables: quote on-------------------------------------------- Even though there are only five chesspieces on the board and the tablebase is running, both stupid engines give the following evaluation: Junior-7: + 5.43 Fritz-7: + 6.19 quote off------------------------------------------- It seems obvious to _me_ that he doesn't understand what he is talking about in _these_ cases. He is a great chess player. He is _not_ a great computer chess expert. > >> >> >>>> >>>>It is clear that he does not understand the problem(otherwise he could say >>>>incomplete tablebases). >>>> >>>>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.