Author: Michel Langeveld
Date: 08:22:40 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 11:20:58, Michel Langeveld wrote: >On October 16, 2003 at 10:51:42, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 16, 2003 at 10:27:41, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2003 at 10:05:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2003 at 09:56:59, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 16, 2003 at 08:35:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Nalimov tablebases are not very important for endgames and they are not going to >>>>>>change results in most of the endgames. >>>>> >>>>>This depends to a great extent on the engine, I think. The experiments I have >>>>>seen which conclude that tablebases have no measurable effect on playing >>>>>strength >>>>>have always been conducted with strong engines like Yace and Crafty, which >>>>>probably play excellent endgames even without tablebases. I expect that a >>>>>program >>>>>with little or badly tuned endgame knowledge will profit much more from >>>>>tablebases. >>>>> >>>>>Tord >>>> >>>>Most of the mistakes in endgames are in positions when tablebaes cannot help. >>>> >>>>Maybe they can help if the program does not know to win KQ vs K but better >>>>evaluation can solve this problem and more problems so I do not think that >>>>tablebases is the right thing to add. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> KRPKR is hard without tablebases, same for KQKR, KBBK, KBBKN, KRKN and some >>>others. The importance of tablebases is not only to play those endgames >>>perfectly, but to choose the correct variation many moves before when you see >>>those positions in the search and your eval is not enough. >> >> >>I know but my point is: >>1)most of the endgames when weak engines blunder are decided because of mistakes >>when tablebases cannot help. >>2)good evaluation that can help for solving the problem in 1 can help also >>to solve tablebases position so it is better to do like you do in anubis. >> >>> On the other hand, in Anubis I have chosen not to implement tablebases but >>>good eval. IMO, a good eval is better because it's more general so you can >>>evaluate endgames with many pawns, it's faster and you don't depend upon >>>external files (this is important when you release your engine as freeware and >>>other people don't have tablebases). >>> Averno plays endgames badly without tablebases, probably worth 50 ELO or more >>>(haven't checked it). >>> >>> José C. >> >>I will be surprised if it is worth 50 elo or more. >>tablebases may even be counter productive without knowledge because you may >>prefer KR KPPP that win for the pawns and not KR KPP that is a draw based on >>tablebases. >> >>Uri > >Dieter did some months ago extensive testing with Yace about the difference of >tablebases .... he could hardly measure any difference. It's more a matter of >style in strong engines. Be aware the tablebases can also slow a program down a >lot and ruine the searchdepth. So in other words, I agree with your point
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.