Author: Jim Bond
Date: 07:44:15 05/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 10:09:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2003 at 09:41:33, Jim Bond wrote: > >>On May 04, 2003 at 05:06:10, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>We are all talking about in Shredder's ending game here. I suggest you read the >>original post by George Wilson about Shredder's fantasitic ending game play. If >>TB probes do not translate to more strength in the ending game, Shredder >>wouldn't have done them so much more than other engines and people wouldn't have >>built TB in the first play. You theory is not aligned with the facts. >> >>Jim > >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 You are making sense. I only said in the beginning that Shredder's success in the ending game COULD be PARTLY due to its ability to probe TB more often than other engines. Now, how much of that "PARTLY" as a contribution? Who knows. But we know one thing for sure is that TB counts are observable and Shredder does probe significantly more than Fritz and ChessTiger. One may argue those are fake numbers but there shouldn't be any dispute for that. Jim
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.