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 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.