|
Oppose, because I basically have one problem with most sentences:
- the caption for the picture in the lead seems too long. Actually, most captions are too long in the article. If these captions are really adding value, they ought to be incorporated in the text.
- some words in British, others in American (however I do not see that as being really important)
- the sentence "Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backwards from a checkmated position" sounds obviously wrong, as tablebases also work backward from a stalemate position or from a drawn position.
- the sentence "Tablebases have solved chess for every position with six pieces or fewer" may precise that the "six pieces" include the Kings (may sound obvious to most, but not to me).
- in the sentence "The results of the solution have profoundly advanced the chess community's understanding of endgame theory", what solution are we talking about ? what is endgame theory ? (there is no link)
- in the sentence "Positions which humans had analyzed as draws were proven to be decided", what do you mean by "decided" ? (not defined anywhere). To me, a "draw" is a decision.
- the sentence "Tablebases have enhanced competitive play" sounds like an opinion. Any reference ?
- the sentence "They provide a powerful analytical tool, enabling students of chess to discover its deepest secrets", I don't know, somehow it just does not sound "encyclopedic", more something of a commercial add for a tablebase engine
- in the sentence "In principle, it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance" I could point out that maybe we should explain/define what a game with random chance is, but that seems too nitty-gritty. Probably even the average Joe will know that.
- in the sentence "Strong solutions are known for some simple games", why do you qualify the solution as "strong" ? What is a "strong solution" ?
- in the "Background" section, second paragraph, maybe we should mention the horizon effect to explain software's weaknesses in endgames ?
- all references should be wikified, e.g. "(Levy & Newborn 1991:25-38)" should be replaced by something like [63] (after the punctuation! ;-))
- it would be cool to explain more in details the differences between Thompson tables, Nalimov tables, etc.
- the sentence "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to a simpler endgame" should be rephrased as something like "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to an endgame whose solution is known". Indeed, sometimes the computer goes to a much more complicated endgme (e.g. sacrificing pieces without reasons), just because it knows the solution of that last one.
- in the section "Step 1: Generating all possible positions" it should be made immediately clear that 40,000 is an approximation.
- the paragraph on the conflict between pawns and symmetry is very interesting, and should be referenced.
- in the section "Step 3: Verification", maybe we should point out that it is not a verification of thruth, but only of self-consistency. I mean, the whole tablebase could be completely wrong and still self-consistent, and then the verification program would not detect the errors, right ?
- the sentence "(However, castling is allowed by convention in composed problems and studies.)" should contain links to "composed problems" and to "studies".
- the caption for the picture in the section "Using a priori information" is long and does not really bring information relevant for the subject of "a priori information"
- in the section "Correspondence chess", I do not immediately see the link between the second paragraph and the title of the section. I mean, the 50-moves rule is applicable even in over-the-board games, in analysis session, in adjourned games, in computer chess, etc. So why should we mention it in the "Correspondence" section ?
- the section "Endgame theory" is too long if the main article is considered to be "Endgame#Effect of tablebases on endgame theory". I do not see any need to double the information in each article, so maybe we should put a very short section in one of the articles, and a very expanded one in the other.
- there is a dead link to "Harold van der Heijden"
- what is the purpose of the section "Play chess with God" ? It sounds trivia to me, and too short to be a section on its own
All in all, this article is really great and has a lot of content and a good number of refereces, but I feel there is some "wikifying" to be done. Also, the lead seems fine for anyone who ALREADY knows the subject, but I think a newcomer would be confused by some sentences. SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
- Articles should be consistent between American/British spelling
- I thought that retrograde analysis worked back only from won positions,since everything not reaching a won position is a drawn position. But someone more familiar with it than I am should see what is correct.
- Thanks for explaining that to me! If that is the case, then of course my mistake. Still, maybe we should explain this mechanism in the article. Also, how does it come with the thing that some 5 pieces vs 1 pieces are not evaluated (I have seen that in the Talk page of the article) because they are assumed to be always won ? SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
- I wouldn't say that they have profoundly affected endgame theory, since only a few endgame evaluations were changed, and they were mostly rare ones or ones that take more than 50 moves.
- I changed "decided" to "decisive" and added "some". Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
- Hi Bubba, and thanks for your interest in my comments. That gave me faith to add more! (see hereupon) SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
- Your points are good points. I think those changes could be made without objection, except that I thought that the retrograde analysis for the tablebases started with a checkmate or conversion to a known won position, not any drawn positions. Bubba73 (talk), 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
SyG, those are a lot of good points, and it will take me some time to fix most of them. I'll respond quickly to one point: tablebases actually do not analyze backward from drawn positions. They only analyze won positions, and anything that's not a win is, by default, a draw. I mention this in the section on "generating tablebases", and I believe it is mentioned in at least two of the articles used as references (one each by Haworth and Krabbe). Thank you for the feedback. Shalom Hello 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply |
