Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 05:54:47 06/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2003 at 08:18:08, James T. Walker wrote:
>"Furthermore, the programs will have no access to the EGTB so that we can see
>the proper endgame knowledge of the engines."
>
>This statement implies that tablebases are "improper" endgame knowledge!?
>Tablebases shorten games (time) and I suspect some engines depend on them for
>many positions where it would be tedious to program special knowledge for each
>position(KNNKP/KBNK etc). Leaving them out is a mistake in my opinion.
In the sense I do understand "knowledge" for chess
programs, the EGTB must no be used. You may of course
be right that some programs depend more than others
from EGTB. But cannot the same difference be said if
some programs do handle the EGTB access much more effective
than others? And as already said: it's just our aim
to learn a bit more about such things and differences.
Personally spoken, I do not think that Shredder704 will
take last place because of missing tablebases.
Kurt
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.