1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2006where are these doubters you speak of? show me, on page 3, in my post, responding to a post in page 2, where all these doubters are decrying Fifthdivision?
"and as somebody already said, he was asked and he answered. he wasnt mugging around saying "I'm an IM!"" you on page 3
So really all you were doing was saying that we should take everyone at their word where there is no proof and no evidence to support their claims, apart from some, apparently, pretty shoddy analysis. You said he "he wasn't despite little or no evidence yet, whereas the doubters had more evidence against it?
As of then at least 4-5 strong players, according to their rating, had expressed appreciation and admiration for both 5th's play and critical analysis.
Was it YOU who "outted" him? Did you study his chess annotation for 2 hours picking it apart (as Varenka did much later)?
NO< you said "care to prove this"
WOW, what an investigator you are! If only I had access to your sluething skills perhaps I would have been suspicious😴
Note too that this is the SECOND thread he started about beating Fritz, and in the other one all there is is praise for his play.
Where did I ever say I believed his status? I merely said that he answered a question posed to him.
I like how you say "apparently, pretty shoddy analysis" since you yourself cant pick out its flaws, so what "evidence" is this you speak of?
I'll take someone at his word if I havent been given a valid reason as to why I shouldnt.
At the time, what reason was there for me to doubt his word?
and yet again I challenge you to find a statement wherein I backed his claim to be an IM?
My response to the Slow Pawn was about as close as you will get, and all that proved is that I believed him to be a strong player.
Maybe I WANTED him to be an IM, cus that would be cool, but I never anywhere said I believed him to be one, beyond not being willing to call him a liar.
"he wasnt mugging around saying, "I'm and IM"" that is your evidence?
You are reading that wrong and out of context, I was the second or thrid person to say "he answered a question when asked" all I did was add the part about him NOT advertising or bragging it about all over the place, one could even make the arguement he would never have mentioned anything about it had a direct question not been posed to him.
we can argue about this as long as you like, I believed fifthdivision to be a strong player and was willing to defend some, at the time, unwarranted attacks against him.
Mores the pity now that he's a cheat, a waste of effort all around.
1 edit
Originally posted by TuranthorI've wondered that myself.
This thread kinda makes me wonder:
What happens when Fritz plays Fritz? which Fritz will win?
Specifically, how much would the computers that were running the programs effect the outcome.
In other words, if two different computers running the same version of the same engine played each other, would the computer with the stronger processing power emerge victorious?
Or wouldn't it matter?
Originally posted by Red NightOver a series of games it is very likely that the stronger computer would score the greater number of wins. Engines don't play perfect chess, so even if you set Fritz to play Fritz on the same computer with the same time controls you will often get non-draw outcomes.
In other words, if two different computers running the same version of the same engine played each other, would the computer with the stronger processing power emerge victorious?
Originally posted by GatecrasherThanks.
Over a series of games it is very likely that the stronger computer would score the greater number of wins. Engines don't play perfect chess, so even if you set Fritz to play Fritz on the same computer with the same time controls you will often get non-draw outcomes.
Originally posted by GatecrasherFrom what I've discovered pitting my engine against others on playchess (in the engine room of course) tablebases play huge role in deciding who wins a game. It not only helps in finishing off those won games it also helps reach them (as search depth is drastically increased if tablebase positions enter the picture).
Over a series of games it is very likely that the stronger computer would score the greater number of wins. Engines don't play perfect chess, so even if you set Fritz to play Fritz on the same computer with the same time controls you will often get non-draw outcomes.
Check out one of Mary Ann's games where she resigns a (obviously) drawn KRP(h file)KR game.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI've seen that game.
From what I've discovered pitting my engine against others on playchess (in the engine room of course) tablebases play huge role in deciding who wins a game. It not only helps in finishing off those won games it also helps reach them (as search depth is drastically increased if tablebase positions enter the picture).
Check out one of Mary Ann's games where she resigns a (obviously) drawn KRP(h file)KR game.
Originally posted by XanthosNZCertainly, if a game reaches the point where tablebases are employed, we do enter the realm of perfect chess. I expect as time progresses and we see exponential increases in computing power and storage capacity, we'll see 7 piece, 8 piece, even 9 piece tablebases.... but its going to take quite some eons before there is a 32 piece tablebase.
From what I've discovered pitting my engine against others on playchess (in the engine room of course) tablebases play huge role in deciding who wins a game. It not only helps in finishing off those won games it also helps reach them (as search depth is drastically increased if tablebase positions enter the picture).
When that day comes, will chess be effectively "solved"? And will engines no longer be useful?
Originally posted by Gatecrasherbear in mind that the increase is exponetial.
Certainly, if a game reaches the point where tablebases are employed, we do enter the realm of perfect chess. I expect as time progresses and we see exponential increases in computing power and storage capacity, we'll see 7 piece, 8 piece, even 9 piece tablebases.... but its going to take quite some eons before there is a 32 piece tablebase.
When that day comes, will chess be effectively "solved"? And will engines no longer be useful?
I think its about 1 gig for 5 men.
for 15 it would probably be getting on 300gig.
a 32 peice tablebase would be so large there would be very few people who would own a hard-drive big enough...
so no, I don't think engines will become obsolete.
although it would be the death of chess....- opening theory would probably simplify into "e4 or die"
Originally posted by GatecrasherEven allowing for Moore's Law I can't see any tablebases exceeding 12 men (or so) being generated in my lifetime. The exponential nature of tablebase positions completely nullfies (and more) the Moore's Law gains (doubling of components every 18 months).
Certainly, if a game reaches the point where tablebases are employed, we do enter the realm of perfect chess. I expect as time progresses and we see exponential increases in computing power and storage capacity, we'll see 7 piece, 8 piece, even 9 piece tablebases.... but its going to take quite some eons before there is a 32 piece tablebase.
When that day comes, will chess be effectively "solved"? And will engines no longer be useful?
If we just look at an example:
KK has 49*55 + 4*6*48 + 4* 60 = 4327 legal positions.
Now if we add another piece (say a bishop) we need to distinguish which side to move. With the weaker side to move we have 4327*62 = 268,274 positions (as checks are legal positions). With the stronger side to move the math is more complicated and I'll have to think of the best way to calculate it but you can see even from the incomplete example how much a single extra piece complicates matters.
Also remember, tablebases improve play before they are reached on the board. If I look at my engine analysis (which Fritz will output) during its games I can see it evaluating 20 move long tablebase sequences with 7 or 8 pieces on the board still. It's saying the equivilent of "If I trade rooks now then I can't win the endgame against perfect play so what does the evaluation look like when I don't trade them? Is it better or worse than a draw?". Because it doesn't have to look at the rook trade situation it can immediately prune those lines and look deeper into the non trade lines.
1 edit
Assuming that you are correct that a five piece lookup table is a gigabyte. For a six piece lookup table you'd have to have the following:
1) Almost all the positions in the five piece lookup table, plus a white pawn on a2.
2) As above but with the white pawn on b2
3) Etc. for each of the 48 legal squares for a white pawn.
4) Again, but this time for a black pawn.
5) Again, but this time with a white knight. 64 legal squares this time.
This shows that a six piece lookup table would be of the order of (8*64) + (2*48) = 25000 (approx) times bigger than the five piece lookup table! Each additional piece would make the table almost 25000 times bigger (slightly less as some positions would be illegal and there would be slightly less squares for the extra piece to be placed).