Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 19:41:20 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 20:22:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 13:27:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>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 > >One day you'll learn to (a) get the chip off your shoulder; (b) read with >comprehension; (c) discuss with an open mind. One day you'll learn to (a) stop trying to obfuscate an issue when you realize that what you've been saying is wrong; (b) read with comprehension; (c) discuss with an open mind. >It is pretty clear what he is saying in the article. In one case a program >screws up with 5 pieces on the board. And it screws up with more than 5 >pieces on the board. It will _never_ screw up with 5 pieces on the board if >things are set up right. If they aren't, he should not be complaining, he >should be off fixing his setup problem. Handwaving. You originally said he was an idiot because he wasn't counting the kings as "men" in his "5-men" positions. You can either drop the subject (because you're wrong), or admit that you're wrong, or try to prove that you were right about the 5-man vs. 7-man thing (I don't see how this can be done). But if you want to have an argument/discussion that makes any sense, you can't write 5 sentences of drivel unrelated to the topic at hand in a lame attempt to convince yourself and others that you didn't originally misread the article. -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.