Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Rybka

Author: chandler yergin

Date: 13:54:35 01/26/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 25, 2006 at 19:22:20, Uri Blass wrote:

>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.

Knowledge has nothing to with it!  Once entering into the Tb's Perfect Play
is done from either side.!
Period!
>
>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.