Author: Milorad Madjar
Date: 04:01:22 07/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2003 at 06:34:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 27, 2003 at 06:27:48, Milorad Madjar wrote: > >>On July 27, 2003 at 06:18:52, George Tsavdaris wrote: >> >>>On July 27, 2003 at 05:56:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2003 at 05:20:37, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>> >>>>>Junior 8 can’t mates without TBs with B+N !!!!! >>>> >>>>No surprise. >>>>A lot of programmers do not consider that knowledge as important when tablebases >>>>can solve the problem. >>Of course, I think that is very stupid if one the best chess programs (or >>Kramnik, Kasparov, Fisher,Capablanka, ....) don't know mates without TBs with >>B+N than he must see or read to Tbs or different book for mates!!!!! >>Regards >>Milan > >I think that trying to compare top programs with humans is a stupid comparison. >Programs are supposed to solve some problems and the way that they solve it is >unimportant. I think it is veri important.Because If you go on this way, today or tomorrow you can have very big Tbs and very big opening book and two chess programs Will be play 20-30 moves with very big opening book and have 10 moves in the middlegame and that go to very big Tbs. I put to you one question : where is the chess ??? If the game have 60 moves in this game you have only 10 moves of really chess !!!! > >If humans are allowed to use book during games then I do not find it as stupid >if they do not learn the relevant books before the games. >programs are allowed to use tablebases in all the serious tournaments so >I do not find it as stupid if they do not have the relevant knowledge. > This comparison is not stupid, because until the game continue man can't use book to see best move , but chess programes until the game continue see to Tbs (book) and we have two Tbs (book) how play game not.I don't want that chess ! >Uri
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.