Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 08:00:23 08/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2005 at 09:54:11, Tord Romstad wrote: >On August 20, 2005 at 09:20:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>I do have a problem with programs that are using shared code for tasks >>that are not strictly one-answer tasks. EGTBs are a counter-point, in that >>everyone gets the _same_ EGTB score whether they use Eugene's code, write their >>own probe for his tables, or write code to build their own tables. > >It is not quite that simple. First of all, it is not at all sure that everybody >gets >the same EGTB score regardless of what code and tables they use. The score >will depend on whether you use distance to mate or distance to conversion, >on whether you consider the 50 move rule, and on whether you have bugs >(we are talking about non-trivial code, after all). An even more important >point is that EBGT probing in not only about getting the right result, but also >about getting the right result *quickly*. It is not at all easy to compress the >EGTBs down to a manageable size and still be able to decompress and probe >quickly on the fly. > >In my opinion, including Nalimov's EGTB code in the program is no better >(and no worse) than using a GUI book. EGTBs don't play moves. GUI's do. Therefore they are not the same. > >Tord
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.