Author: Jim Bond
Date: 20:54:19 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 23:14:26, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 21:58:19, Jim Bond wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 20:58:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>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 >>> >>>What's your problem? >>> >>>Uri never said that rules are accurate in all cases or that tablebases are >>>unnecessary and should never be probed. >>> >>>Of COURSE you can find cases where rules will not apply. That's when you do a >>>lookup. The fact that you can find these cases completely misses the point. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>You are welcome to adding your opinions. I guess you want to clarified what Uri >>has been trying to say - more TB probing is bad. Do you agree? >> >>Jim > >Uri has been saying nothing of the sort--he's saying that a probe is not >necessarily good, i.e., when you can get a perfectly accurate rule-based answer >much faster. > >-Tom You are saying "a probe is not necessarily good" but I believe at least it is accurate. I think you meant to say more probes are not necessary more efficient which is acceptable but you can not deny the a fact that Shredder does more probes and it is the top program. I am not say the correlation is 100% but the correlation is there. Jim
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.