Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 15:21:32 12/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2005 at 17:40:27, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On December 25, 2005 at 07:27:41, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On December 25, 2005 at 05:09:31, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On December 25, 2005 at 04:31:59, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>>[...] >>>> But i hope a knowledge based programs like Rybka to obtain the knowledge needed >>>>to solve problems like the following easily. I don't really know why (almost)no >>>>program has not the right knowledge to solve that kind of problems. >>>[...] >>>>A draw..... >>>>[D]8/8/2K4p/4N2k/2p5/5N2/3P4/q7 b - - 0 3 >>> >>> Hi George >>> It does perhapbs not make sense to learn programs >>> things only needed once out of 10,000 games -:) >>> Best regards (and merry christmas) >>> Kurt >> >>I've already managed to make a rough design of the endgame knowledge solution >>for Rybka 1.2, and this position won't be covered by it. >> >>In the long term, however, an engine should solve this position as well. It's >>part of the bigger concept of knowing when you can't make progress. >> >>Vas > >While I respect this idea, of correct future assessment for problems like >the one posted, I think the practical aspect of play would advise against >knowing when one can't make progress if that were to imply not letting the >opponent play on and possibly blunder against Rybka. > >You don't have to play perfect chess. Let the blunders continue to work >on your behalf. The stronger you play, the sooner the opponent's blunder >may occur to your advantage. > >Sounds strange. Just my thought. > >Greetings, > >Stuart It all comes down to winning chances. If black has better winning chances, he should get a positive eval. An eval like +4 here doesn't accurately describe the winning chances though. Vas
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.