Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:55:19 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 20:02:56, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 18:19:58, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 19, 2003 at 18:01:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2003 at 17:17:15, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 19, 2003 at 16:43:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>What in the WORLD are you talking about?? What article are you referring to? I'm >>>>going to this URL, which is at the top of this thread: >>>> >>>>http://www.clubkasparov.ru/521772350.html?462691585533321 >>>> >>>>What do you mean, "original position 2"? Has the article changed? >>> >>>"original position 2": the position given in the article. >>> >>>"modified position 2": the position you get if you "remove three pawns >>>as suggested by the author." >>> >>>Was that too hard to understand??? >>> >>> >>> >>>>? Because the >>>>current position 2 has 7 pieces (not 8) and if you take the pawns off (for what >>>>reason?), you're left with KB vs. KB, which you'd think Junior and Fritz would >>>>evaluate as a draw, and the couple sentences of discussion about it don't talk >>>>about databases at ALL. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>> >>>On the other hand, you are correct. I meant position 1. Not position 2. >>> >>>So in the above replace 2 with 1 in both places. And we are back to the >>>point. Removing three of the pawns produces a bogus evaluation. Because >>>the tables were _not_ working. He _should_ have known that before writing >>>an article and publishing it. >>> >>>If you remove three pawns, it will be in the 5 piece tables. If he really >>>had them. He implied he did. But he didn't. And that leaves out the fact >>>that _some_ programs can get this one right without tables, even with the >>>original 8 pieces on the board. Mine can, for example. >>> >>>There is little excuse for saying something doesn't work, when it doesn't >>>work because of a user error. Publishing it is even worse. >> >>I think it's not optimal. It seems like he should have thought twice when his >>5-man databases didn't give him the solution to a 5-man position. One can argue >>that his complaints are legitimate because the programs gave him the impression >>that the databases were installed when they weren't. > > >One thing that should be kept in mind about GM Shipov's misimpression havin all >the 5-man EGTBs is that advertising for chess programs foster this impression >with ambiguity. They claim their program comes with 5-man EGTBs, but neglect to >say they don't come with all of them. A lot of people fall for this and I >remember once going through a lot of trouble a long time ago in sorting this out >about a particular chess program. An understandable error. Sure it is when chessbase advertises "all endgame tables on 3 or 4 CDs" or whatever they claim. However, when publishing something, knowing you are supposed to have all 5-piece files but getting a bogus score for a 5 piece ending _should_ run up a red flag... > > >> >>I've always agreed with that point though. >> >>Now that you've dropped your assertion that the guy is an idiot because he >>wasn't counting kings as pieces in his 5-man positions, it seems like this has >>been discussed to conclusion. >> >>-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.