Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:16:35 10/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2000 at 21:06:41, Jason Williamson wrote: >On October 13, 2000 at 08:24:22, Peter Skinner wrote: > >> >>>>Tiger does not use tablebases. >>>> >>>> >>>Which helped Yace save a few lost endings against Gambit Tiger on the ICC :))) >>> >>>JW >> >>I have actually never seen Tiger or Gambit Tiger draw an ending that it was up >>in score. >> >>I also have noted several times on this board, that the engines like Tiger that >>don't use tb's are my favorite. Knowledge is power. > >In one case, Rebel had something like +6 or more, but it was a tricky Q ending, >Rebel transposed into a drawn QP+Q ending if I recall. Actually, knowledge is >great, and tablebases are not a good excuse for having bad endgame play. But on >the other hand, it is so easy to do tablebase coding now, there really isn't any >excuse not to include it. > >JW I understood from previous posts that including tablebases is more easy for amateurs who do not have to care for all the systems. Commercial programs who use part of the tablebases have bugs and cannot win some KPP vs KP endgame because they do not have the KQP vs KP tablebases. Tablebases are also wrong because they are distance to mate and not distance to conversion. If the programmer wants to use right tablebases then (s)he needs to do another tablebases generator of distance to conversion. 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.