Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:23:03 05/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 10:09:55, Uri Blass wrote: <snipped> >Nobody said that tablebases cannot help > >The point is that the fact that shredder is better in endgames can >be explained by other factors and I think based on my experience that other >factors can explain it better. > >I believe based on my experience that shredder7.04(without tablebases) is better >than other programs in endgames. > >In most endgames the tablebases are simply irrelevant for the final result. > >Endgames are not only positions with few pieces in the board but also position >when both sides have 6 pawns knight orbishop and rook and >even if there are few logical lines >that lead to tablebases(often they are not) they are not >forced and knowing the results of them is not going to change the move of the >program. > >possible reasons for shredder's success in the endgame or gettting better >endgames may be better search rules and better evaluation of endgames. > >Uri Another point that I think about is that it is possible that different programs define number of tablebases probes in a different way. If shredder count probe every time that it get to a tablebase position even if it can read the score from hash tables then it may get different result than programs that count probe only in cases that they really probe the tablebases. Uri
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.