Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:05:06 06/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 2002 at 09:36:23, Mark Rawlings wrote: >On June 08, 2002 at 01:02:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >> >>I don't know about the "quicker" part. But the 50-move rule is a serious >>problem. It would seem that we need to soon convert to a combination of >>DTM/DTC so that we can work around the 50 move rule with some sort of reasonable >>algorithm that will work in a running chess engine. >> >>But in any case, current DTM or DTC by themselves have difficulties that are >>serious problems.. > >I agree that eventually having both DTM and DTC tablebases would be useful. >It's probably not worth the effort to spend a lot of time trying to incorporate >the 50-move rule into the tablebase. I can see someone spending several years >doing this and then FIDE changing it to the 60-move rule! > That would be ok. Because if you know _both_ you could still determine whether the position was won or drawn due to the N-move rule. If you have the DTC score to help interpret the DTM score... >Mark
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.