Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:50:36 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 16:50:31, Jim Bond wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 15:59:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 15:45:14, Jim Bond wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2003 at 15:10:50, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 03, 2003 at 14:37:48, Jim Bond wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 14:07:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 13:44:27, Jim Bond wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 10:32:08, George Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After playing Shredder 7.04 against Several Strong programs on two separate >>>>>>>>computers I am very "Impressed" . I wonder though what distinguishes this >>>>>>>>program from the other top programs, what gives it the edge in playing strength? >>>>>>>> I think it is shredders fantastic endgame prowness. All six of the games it won >>>>>>>>against century 4 was in the endgame, however rebel seemed to play even with it >>>>>>>>tactically in all the middlegames >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This could be partly due Shredder's ability to probe ending game table base. I >>>>>>>tend to find that, in its analysis window, the tb numbers are much bigger than >>>>>>>other engines. >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree >>>>>>Bigger is not better. >>>>>> >>>>>>I did not check your theory but if shredder probes ending tablebases more than >>>>>>other programs then it suggests that shredder has not knowledge that it can >>>>>>trust without tablebases. >>>>>> >>>>>>A program with knowledge is not going to probe tablebases in a lot of tablebases >>>>>>positions because calculating the winner by knowledge is faster. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Calculating the winner by knowledge may be faster but is it more accurate than >>>>>tablebase? I am afraid not. The table base is a superset of conventional >>>>>theory or knowledge. It is an oracle. Shredder might be going for accuracy as >>>>>oppose to speed. >>>>> >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>It is not less accurate if you do it only in the right part of the cases. >>>>The right part can be bigger when the program has more knolwedge. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Not less accurate? So are you claiming you or someone can program chess >>>knowledge equally or more accurate than the complete 5-men tablebase? I believe >>>the fact is no body can otherwise there wouldn't be tablebase at all. People >>>wouldn't have developed it in the first place. Can anyone cover all the "right >>>parts" as quoted from you? Have anyone been able to? I am afraid not. >>> >>>Jim >> >>I do not use tablebases in movei but there are cases that can be evaluated >>correctly without tablebases >> >>I can give you examples: >> >>KQ vs K is always a win if the position is not stalemate and findin if the >>position is stalemate is faster than calling tablebases. >> >>KBP vs K is a draw when the bishop is blind and the king is close enough to the >>corner. >> >>KPP vs KP is a win for the side with the pp if this side is to move and has >>unstoppable pawn and the distance of the opponent's pawn to be a queen is >>bigger by at least 2. >> >>It is possible to define a lot of rules that will be 100% correct and will cover >>part of the cases. >> >>The main part when they can help is in positions when one side has 3 pieces >>because these cases can be detected as wins in most of the cases with no errors >>in the cases that they are detected as wins. >> >>Uri > >Thanks for sharing the rules. However I wonder if anyone can program a rule >that can accurately solve this Queens-pawn mate in 63 ending position (126 half >moves). The program would have to tell me 1, -1 or 1/2 accurately without TB. > >8/4q2K/1k5p/7Q/6P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 81 > >My point is that in simpler cases, 100% accuracy it is possible, but in more >complicate cases, without TB, it is not humanly programmable or computer >searchable. I am only guessing Shredder might be taking advantage of TB to a >greater degree than other programs given TB is the "truth". > >Jim I know about programs that tablebases were counter productive for mchess because it probed them too much and was slowed down by asignificant factor. The point is that programmers found that probing the tablebases too often is counter productive for playing strength and this is the reason that I do not believe that shredder's advantage relative to other programs is because of probing tablebases. Other top programs also can probe the tablebases and I see no reason to believe that shredder does it better. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.