Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:18 01/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2005 at 17:19:34, chandler yergin wrote:
>On January 17, 2005 at 11:39:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 17, 2005 at 07:33:59, chandler yergin wrote:
>>
>>>On January 16, 2005 at 22:58:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>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...
That is dead wrong. "never" is a theoretical concept, not a practical one,
because no one lives that long to see. Theoretically I _will_ reach her, if I
can try for an infinite amount of time. math proves this.
Practically I will _never_ reach her, but I will get "close enough".
You are interchanging terms that are not interchangable...
Which makes conversations about math impossible...
>
>BUt, you will soon get close enough for 'Practical' Purpopses..
>;) ;)
>
>This is an old Joke, obviously before your time, had I put the ;) Smiley in
>maybe you'd have gotten it.
>
>
>>>>>>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...
>
>
>I have challenged something.. I have entered the Hallowed Halls of CCC,
>where 'newcomers' are not welcome; entered it politely and stated;
>"Chess will Never be solved by Computers"
>
>I got a lot of really ignorant feedback; I responded in kind.
>I will not 'cut & run' from this stuff.
>I am the one that got the ranting, and rhetoric, rude, crude, responses,
>yet, NO one had the Technical Competance to refute, 'anything' I have Posted!
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>Right! NONE of them should!
>You agree?
>
>
>>>
>>>> It is a decision made by the programmer and
>>>>it is a compromise.
>>>
>>>NO, it's a DEFECT; a Serious Defect! A Programmers defect!
>>>Bishops of Opposite Colors are NOT Rare Positions; and I won't allow you to call
>>>it a 'compromise' and get away with it!
>>
>>It _is_ a rare position. Why don't you pick 500 random games, look at every
>>position, and see how often a BOC ending happens and is important to the game
>>outcome? Then you can talk using real data and real understanding, rather than
>>writing nonsense... Many programs played for _years_ with no BOC understanding
>>whatsoever. And they beat GMs regularly in spite of this...
>
>
>
>That is beside the Point! How can you "Dare" to suggest, that a Program
>that can't Spot a Draw after Billions of positions searched, & not find a move
>that a Beginner Player, can see in an instant, is acceptable?
>
>I don't need to pick 500 Random Games..
>ONE Game, that a Program misses an obvious move, is Tooooo many!
>
>
>
>Please Explain! Do a Search of BOC Position, and you will see this is NOT
>a rare occurance.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are reasons for and against recognizing certain rare
>>>>positions as draws or ignoring them in the search for more speed.
>>>
>Nonsense!
>Stick to my Point!
>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!
>>>
>>
>>
>>if it has endgame tables it might...
>
>It does, and it won't!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Try reading with comprehension!
>>>"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!"
>>>
>>
>>Crafty has had BOC code for 10 years. That is a bit longer than "a few years
>>ago". I know other programs that also had this term...
>
>Yes! Also their "positional" understanding SUCKED!
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'll be willing to let Crafty play
>>>>you as many games (Crafty black) as you want, you always playing the Stonewall.
>>>
>>>Then I assume you fixed the Problem!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, I never _had_ the problem...
>
>I'll check it out...
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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...
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>"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?
>>>
>>>Answer the Question!
>>>
>>
>>
>>What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? You can say 2+2 = 4 and
>>also be correct, but it has nothing to do with the stuff in this thread.
>
>
>It's MY Thread! Are you afraid to admit my above Staement was correct?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am going to tell you that in general, you don't know what the hell you are
>>>>talking about.
>>>
>>>You haven't refuted anything I've Posted!
>>>You have avoided the main points, and danced around..
>>
>>
>>You are the one dancing around, never addressing the same topic repeatedly.
>
>
>Because you won't admit I'm right.
>
>Dodger Roger,
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The above had _nothing_ to do with the topic of this thread,
>>>>namely speed and endgame tables.
>>>
>>>It had to do with a Specific Topic I had in mind..
>>>You Nit-Picked it. Milliseconds are not Instantaneous...
>>>What a Pathetic response.!
>>
>>
>>But a _correct_ response. Showing that a program's search speed can drop from
>>1M nodes per second to 1K nodes per second _easily_...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Using Multiple Lines are only showing what the Program has already seen.
>>>If it takes a few ms's SO What?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Nothing except it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stick to the topic or go somewhere else...
>>>
>>>No one died and left you boss!
>>>This is a Forum, if you respond, & have something positive to contribute,
>>>that's fine. If you want to be sarcastic, and make an ass out of yourself,
>>>you WILL get a rude response.
>>
>>
>>About that canadian weather question???
>
>
>I don't live in Canada, I don't care a rat's patootie about Canada.
>
>I like their Beer & Ale thought
>;)
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.