Author: James T. Walker
Date: 18:15:24 06/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2003 at 08:54:47, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >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 To put it another way, what is the downside of using tablebases? Jim
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.