Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:45:38 03/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2000 at 23:13:49, Tina Long wrote:
>On March 25, 2000 at 14:28:13, James Robertson wrote:
>
>>On March 25, 2000 at 13:41:28, Roger wrote:
>>
>>>Would tablebases for Tiger have changed this result at all?
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>Maybe a quarter of a point.... My experience with tablebases is that if the
>>program is moderately smart it doesn't benefit tremendously from them.
>>
>>James
>>
>Ed Schroder said about 6 months ago that Tablebases were worth about 10 points
>on the SSDF scale.
>
>I'm 70% sure he said that! I'm 100% sure that Ed said once that something was
>worth very little rating points.
>
>I'm glad I could add some real detail to this discussion.
>
>Tina Long
As far as I know, endgames are not Tiger's weak point.
One thing I'm sure about: as far as playing strength is the subject, I have a
long list of ideas that, in my opinion, will give much more than tablebases.
It does not matter if tablebases are easy to implement or not (they are not,
unless you want to do it the dirty way, and I won't), I don't see the point in
working on this before I fix more important things.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.