Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 17:12:34 05/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 17:15:04, Jim Bond wrote: >You always talk about simple and isolated cases in which 100% accuracy is >possible without the use of TB. Everyone knows that. But simple an isolated >cases are only small parts of the complete 5-men TB. You can not prove >Shredder's fantasic ending game results have nothing to do the more TB probes You're hinging your argument on Shredder's "fantastic" endgame play, but I think this is a mistake. What evidence do you have? One person's subjective observation based on only 6 games against only one other engine? Riiight. >compared to other programs given the shredder has significantly higher >observable TB counts. I am not claiming the relation is absolutely true but Well, what are the possible explanations for this? 1. Shredder does more TB lookups because it has a bug somewhere. 2. Shredder does more TB lookups because it has less endgame "knowledge" (both in search and in evaluation) than other programs. 3. Shredder has some brillant search logic that somehow allows it to visit more positions that can be found in tablebases and use that info constructively. (3) seems very unlikely to me. >that does not mean the possiblity is not there. Can you prove that there is >absolutely no relation? Proving one thing or the other is not the goal here. You stated a hypothesis, Uri said he didn't think your hypothesis was likely for certain reasons, and ever since you've (loudly) misunderstood those reasons. It is not Uri's job to prove or disprove YOUR hypothesis. You can't prove it, so if he disagrees, well, get over it. -Tom
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.