Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:53:11 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 09:28:39, chandler yergin wrote:
>On January 16, 2005 at 03:35:04, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>On January 15, 2005 at 20:05:15, chandler yergin wrote:
>>
>>>On January 15, 2005 at 13:06:34, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 15, 2005 at 12:29:40, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>New game,
>>>>>{D]7k/8/8/8/8/8/N7/KB6 w - - 0 1
>>>>>
>>>>>Analysis by Shredder 8:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. +- (#29): 1.Kb2
>>>>>2. +- (#30): 1.Nc3
>>>>>3. +- (#30): 1.Nb4
>>>>>4. +- (#30): 1.Bc2
>>>>>5. +- (#30): 1.Bd3
>>>>>6. +- (#31): 1.Nc1
>>>>>7. +- (#31): 1.Be4
>>>>>8. +- (#32): 1.Bf5
>>>>>9. +- (#32): 1.Bg6
>>>>>10. = (0.00): 1.Bh7
>>>>>
>>>>>(, 15.01.2005)
>>>>>
>>>>>Instantaneous! I don't care how 'deep' in the search.. once into the EGTB,
>>>>>it's there!
>>>>
>>>>You didn't get the point. The slowdown occurs in positions when there are say 9
>>>>men on the board, and the engines probes the tablebases whenever it reaches 5
>>>>men in one of the lines it is examinating.
>>>>
>>>>As disk access is slow it has to wait for the results before it can continue
>>>>with its calculations.
>>>
>>>NONSENSE!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So if it didn't look up the tablebases it could search
>>>>faster,
>>>
>>>NONSENSE!
>>>
>>>
>>>but it hopes that this pays off
>>>
>>>Computers don't HOPE for anything!
>>>
>>>IN it's search, it has automatic ACCESS To EGTB'S, they "Kick In"
>>>& Kick ASS when a search reaches them!
>>>
>>>
>>>because the evaluation of the tablebases
>>>>is perfect.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it IS, and it's "Instantaneous!
>>>
>>>There is NO slowdown.!!
>>>
>>>Don't fall for the Programmer Hype!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's easy to check for yourself, if you setup a position with 8 or 9 men, and
>>>>let your favourite engine search first with then without tablebases.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, it's easy.
>>>
>>>These arrogant guys are WRONG about Multiple Lines...
>>>they don't understand the capability of the engines they are programming!
>>>They are WRONG about ELO'S!
>>>They are wrong about EGTB'S
>>>They are WRONG about Chess being Solved, and if you have some extra
>>>$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I got some nice Swamp Land in Florida....
>>
>>You don't know what you are talking about, people are very patiently trying to
>>explain the situation to you, and you are going off like you've got some
>>disorder.
>>
>>Bob has been watching Crafty play chess with endgame databases for about ten
>>years. Don't you think he might be competent to report what he has seen? Don't
>>you think that others reporting the same thing might increase the chance that
>>he's seeing something that actually exists? This problem exists and has been
>>discussed at length years ago, in this forum.
>>
>>bruce
>
>
>If a Problem exists, and has been discussed for years, then it's self-evident
>that there is disagreement, i.e. that different people see it differently.
Learn to read. "discussed" doesn't necessarily mean "discussed whether the
problem happens or not". In this case, many of us have discussed this many
times in an effort to _reduce_ an existing problem, not prove that the problem
doesn't exist in the first place. _anybody_ that has actually _written_ a chess
engine, or _anybody_ that has used a chess engine in actual games with a large
set of endgame tables available already knows that this _is_ a problem.
>There is no one source or one 'authority'.
>What does exist, and is indisputable, is that YOU, Constantly BUTT INTO
>Threads, with stupid comments on things you know nothing about!
What, now you are talking/arguing with yourself?
>You read without comprehension, you misquote, mislead, & attack Posters,
>presenting NO evidence yourself. I suspect people with knowledge can
>fight their own battles without your assistance.
>CY
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.