Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Rybka

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 16:22:20 01/25/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 25, 2006 at 19:07:51, James T. Walker wrote:

>On January 25, 2006 at 13:03:02, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On January 25, 2006 at 12:37:30, Roger Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>Hello Uri,
>>>>You are playing word games.  Vasik is trying to be a "purest".  I'm sure you can
>>>>add "knowledge" which if not implemented correctly could lower a programs
>>>>rating.  I'm pretty sure Vasik will not do that.
>>>>What would you call endgame knowledge that does not win games but only allows
>>>>the program to draw instead of losing???  (food for thought)
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello James,
>>>
>>>By any definition, endgame knowledge that allows an engine to obtain a draw
>>>instead of a loss must add to a program's rating.
>>>
>>>Or am I missing something here?
>>>
>>>Later.
>>
>>The point is that vasik in the readme wrote the following words (that I
>>mentioned in the post that James replied to):
>>
>>"chess knowledge wins chess games. If it doesn't, it isn't knowledge."
>>
>>I guess that he meant that it increase the result of the engine but if we look
>>at what he said and not in what he meant then his words mean that only drawing
>>games instead of losing games is not knowledge.
>>
>>Note that I do not believe that there is knowledge in evaluation that can help
>>only to draw games instead of losing games because if a program knows by
>>evaluation that some position is a draw it can help it to avoid the draw in case
>>that it has better position and if a program knows by evaluation that some
>>position is a win for one side then it can help it to get it and not choose an
>>alternative that is not clear.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Uri you are starting to post nonsense.  Are you saying that there are no
>positions where the best move is only a draw?  I know you know better.  For
>instance there are positions where a kqkp are a draw.  If a computer has this
>knowledge it can trade into this position instead of playing into a loss.  The
>bishop pawn comes to mind.  To my way of thinking this is knowledge that will
>help save a draw instead of losing.  Do you not believe this?
>Jim

If a computer has not the knowledge of drawn KQ vs KP then it can let the
opponent escape to this draw from a lost position so it is going to have less
wins relative to the case of having the knowledge.

Uri



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.