Author: Jim Bond
Date: 23:10:17 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 01:07:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 23:47:13, Jim Bond wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 23:22:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2003 at 21:28:30, Jim Bond wrote: >>> >>>>On May 03, 2003 at 17:52:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 17:50:36, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snipped> >>>>>>I know about programs that tablebases were counter productive for mchess because >>>>>>it probed them too much and was slowed down by asignificant factor. >>>>> >>>>>I meant here that mchess is an example for a program that tablebases was counter >>>>>productive for it. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>If you believe that more TB probing is counter productive, you are contradicting >>>>with Shredder - the top program. Take this position for example: >>>> >>>>2k5/8/7p/8/5qP1/1Q5K/8/8 w - - 0 72 >>>> >>>>If you run infinite analysis on it with Shredder 7.04, Fritz 0.008 and >>>>ChessTiger 15, you will find that the Shredder accumlates TB counts about 8 >>>>times more than Fritz and about 16 times more than ChessTiger. If TB probing is >>>>counter productive, how come Shredder does it so much more and can still be at >>>>the top? >>>> >>>>Jim >>> >>>Just because Shredder is at the top doesn't mean it plays this particular >>>position better than other programs, i.e., the fact that it does so many more >>>probes does not mean that more probes are good. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>You are saying more probes does not mean that more probes are good, but you >>cannot prove that more probe is bad either. The fact is Shredder does probes >>and it is the top program where others does less probes and are less strong. >>There is a correlation here wouldn't you agreed? >> >>Jim > >If I see A and I see B then it does not mean that A is the reason of B. > > >Shredder can be better than the opponents because of different reasons. >I believe that shredder7.04 is better than the opponents also when the programs >do not get tablebases. > >Uri I am saying "A" can be a likely possible reason for "B" given the observations. For example, if I pour water and the floor is wet, you would say the floor is wet possibly because I poured water right? If the sun came out the east one day and sun also came out the east on the second day, you would say the sun most likely is going come out the east on the third day right? Can anyone know really the truth? Why do you do tree search in movei anyway? Because you don't know the truth right? 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.