Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:58:45 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 17:32:51, chandler yergin wrote:
>On January 16, 2005 at 10:49:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 16, 2005 at 01:15:36, chandler yergin wrote:
>>
>>>On January 15, 2005 at 23:19:50, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 15, 2005 at 20:24:04, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On January 15, 2005 at 20:16:37, Robert Hyatt 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Completely irrelevant. You have to first _reach_ that position, and if you
>>>>>>reach it wrongly, you reach it in a drawn position.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's why the Analysis module seaches E-V-E-R-Y Move in a pV
>>>>
>>>>This would be much more interesting if you had any idea about what you are
>>>>talking about. A disk I/O takes about 5ms. 20 egtb probes in a search will
>>>>burn 1/10th of a second. 200 probes will burn a second. That is _not_
>>>>instantaneous. For a program searching 2M nodes per second, the speed can slow
>>>>down to 20,000 nodes per second easily given the right position.
>>>
>>>
>>>Zeno's Paradox...
>>>
>>>Let's say you are sitting next to your wife or girfriend...
>>>
>>>You slide halfway to her...
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you slide half way closer again...
>>>
>>>Then get halfway again...
>>>
>>>Theoretically, you will NEVER Reach her...
>>
>>This is _absolutely_ wrong. Any good integral calculus book will show you why.
>>
>>hint:
>>
>>The limit of X = 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + 1/2^n for N=infinity is exactly one. Theory
>>is quite clear there.
>>
>>Now if you mean "practically you will never get there" then you would be right.
>>But if you do the 1/2 step enough times, you will get there. It is just that
>>"enough" will take forever.
>>
>>>
>>>BUT; you will get close enough for Practical purposes.
>>>
>>>STOP YOUR CRAP!
>>
>>Learn some math...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If there are 50 "Possible" moves in a position.. it will search
>>>>>deeper and deeper... Subject to your Alpha Beta Algorithm of course...
>>>>>
>>>>>Which may or not be correct...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course ya have to reach the position!
>>>>>Depending on the Static Positional Values Programmed in...
>>>>>in a Quiscent NON - Forcing position, and different engines may evaluate the
>>>>>position differntly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right? You know I'm right!
>>>>
>>>>Hardly...
>
>Sorry, now you're speaking nonsense!
>This is part of the arrogant ignorant misinformation that you guys are
>spreading.
>That, is what I challenge!
Then challenge something and give a citation in the literature to support your
challenge, if it exists... So far you have not provided _anything_ but lots of
ranting and rhetoric...
>Fritz has a BUG in it... especially in positions where the King can run into
>the corner, and the opponent has a Bishop of the wrong color, plus a Rook Pawn
>advantage. Fritz sees the position as a win due to material advantage.
>It's a DRAW of course...
>You can let the Hard Disc spin til Hell freezes over, and it will NOT
>see the Draw!
So what? Not all programs do that. It is a decision made by the programmer and
it is a compromise. There are reasons for and against recognizing certain rare
positions as draws or ignoring them in the search for more speed.
>
>Other Programs had a Big Bug in them.. perhaps it's fixed now,
>but, a few years ago, it was obvious that to Beat the Top Programs,
>White gets a Stonewall Position, and demolishes Black on the Kingside!
Feel free to log on to ICC and show me this. I'll be willing to let Crafty play
you as many games (Crafty black) as you want, you always playing the Stonewall.
>
>Put up any complicated Position, and let 5 Programs evaluate it!
>
>Tell me they ALL eval the pV the same?
>NONSENSE!
So? Neither do humans. You seem to overlook that...
>
>In a NON-Forcing Quiescent Position, the Static Positional Values come into
>play.Different analysis modules evaluate the position differently, based on how
>they were Programmed.
>
>Now, are you going to tell me and this Forum, I am NOT correct?
I am going to tell you that in general, you don't know what the hell you are
talking about. The above had _nothing_ to do with the topic of this thread,
namely speed and endgame tables. Stick to the topic or go somewhere else...
This page took 0.02 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.