Author: Steve Glanzfeld
Date: 14:38:52 06/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2005 at 16:50:57, Gabor Szots wrote: >On June 19, 2005 at 15:37:23, Robert Hollay wrote: > >>On June 19, 2005 at 13:25:49, Steve Maughan wrote: >>>>No. EGTB's do not increase the knowledge of the engine. They are simply like >>>>vocabularies or lexicons. >>>You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If an engine doesn't know >>>how to mate with B+N+K v K and you implement / copy the EGTB it will "know" how >>>to mate. >>I am a poor chess player and probably couldn't mate a GM with B+N+K v K. >>But if somebody tell me what to move in each position, >>would be my "chess knowledge" increased? I don't think so. > >Exactly. I even know of a chess programmer who believes (at least once said so) >that using EGTB's is cheating. Don't ignore the fundamental hardware differences between humans and comps! :-)) So, different concepts have to be applied most often, to reach the same goals. Tablebases represent the purest, most perfect chess knowledge on earth! When tablebases would be cheating when a chess program uses them, then reading and learning from an Averbakh endgame book would be cheating when a human player does it: BOTH access and use knowledge they haven't created themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------- This is mankind's secret of success: Don't reinvent the wheel every day (or once every 10.000 years)... Steve
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.