Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Does a computer evaluate the result of the game or does the computer consult an array of known results. Suppose someone published an hundreds of volumes showing all possible endgames and the result. As already mentioned one could find the evaluation of the next position and follow this book to best possible result. The site allows books. A wealthy player could transform an endgame database into volumes of books thereby have an unfair advantage. I think we should allow tablebases to keep everyone on equal footing. I wonder if I should study an endgame table base
|
|
|
| doran wrote: Does a computer evaluate the result of the game or does the computer consult an array of known results. |
The latter. Yes, in theory, one could write the tablebases down on paper and thus be allowed to use them here. However, most of the three- and four-man tablebases are simple enough for a human not to need to do this and the five-man tablebases are so big that it isn't feasible. Nobody would go to such expense just to gain a small advantage on a chess website.
|
|
|
richerby - my posting was intended to probe the definition of the word book. The world book encyclopedia is availible as a DVD. I presume it has search features. Is it still a book? If we disallow electronic books then we disallow several opening books written to be read with chess base. An endgame table base compiled as an electronic book seems to be consistent with the letter of the rule for correspondance chess. Those who wish to modify the rule must be careful. The new rule should not make it illegal to read the section on philidors defense when one is defending a rook and pawn ending.
|
|
|
| ...the games should be finished immediately when no more than 6 pieces remain on the board - as the result is in such case known. |
A win should be decided by demonstration or actual play and not on the basis of whether the result of a position is known. There are probably already far too many players who don't even know how to play out a KR v K ending. Just how lazy are we prepared to allow ourselves to become?
|
|
|
| ...most of the information contained in a chess book...is also an evaluation... |
Not of your own positions 
| ...or in an opening database... |
These aren't the same as endgame tablebases, since you can't compare theory with certainty.
| I am in favour of using endgame tablebases because, between other things, it is almost impossible to accurately know if a player is playing with the use of such endgames databases or not...this is not the same as using Fritz to choose your move... |
How is it not the same? If you're going to use tablebases because your opponents might already be doing so, then why not use chess engines for the same reason?
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
