Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: LOL ROFL :-)

Author: Gabor Szots

Date: 22:19:44 06/19/05

Go up one level in this thread


On June 19, 2005 at 17:38:52, Steve Glanzfeld wrote:

>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.


But there is a big difference: humans remember, while computers look into the
book all the time they need that knowledge.


>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This is mankind's secret of success: Don't reinvent the wheel every day (or once
>every 10.000 years)...
>
>Steve



This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.