Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 02:06:10 05/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 02:19:17, Jim Bond wrote: >On May 04, 2003 at 02:03:25, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>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. >>> >> >> >>Bingo. "Correlation" does not necessarily imply "cause and effect." >> >>If program X comes in a blue box and program Y comes in a red box and X is a >>better program, then the conclusion that X is better than Y, because it comes in >>a blue box is the mark of pure idiocy. >> >> >>> >>>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 > > >You are correct. I have not been claiming it is a fact but it is a possibility >base on observations. No one would know the truth unless he/she askes Stephan. > >Jim Based on what observations? The observation that Shredder does more TB probes than other programs in some cases? Sure, I guess it's POSSIBLE that Shredder is the top program because it plays the late endgame marginally better than other top programs, but how likely is that? This also assumes that more TB probes translates to more strength, which is a leap of faith already... Occam's razor. -Tom
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.