Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:44:23 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 14:33:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 No. Are you stupid or something?
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.