Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:43:52 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 22:41:20, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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. Sorry, but I have been doing that from the beginning. The article is about computers and endgames. In position 2, he complains because it gets the wrong evaluation, even after removing three pawns. That only shows that (a) his setup is broken; (b) he doesn't know enough about computer chess to realize it is broken. End of story. rant all you want. But the text of the article is there for anyone to read, and it is hard to reach _any_ _other_ conclusion from reading it. He simply doesn't understand computer chess enough to be writing the article without some technical help that he apparently didn't have. > >>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 I take the comment as what I said. The original position 2 had 8 pieces. He complained about the evaluation. Even taking three pawns off it _still_ was wrong. Because something was wrong in his setup. While I certainly might have misunderstood his comment, he complained about the wrong evaluation with 8 pieces on the board as well as with 5, and mentioned endgame tables. Which would _certainly_ produce the right answer with 3 pawns missing. As well as in position 9. So, he has a serious technical issue. Yet he writes the article without even _knowing_ he has a technical problem. My original comment stands... IMHO.
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.