Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:33:27 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 13:40:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 23:03:21, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 20:19:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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 ... >So? I'm talking about position two and he mentions tablebases there... Are you schizophrenic or something? -Tom
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.