Author: Tina Long
Date: 23:08:44 03/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2000 at 11:45:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. Good, I think you should work on whatever gives you the most performance improvement per working hour. I also think you should get the main ideas implimented and tested before Sept. 15 2000. Test & promote heavily through October. Top the December 12 SSDF list by 7 clear points (+-50). And get the next version out in time to beat Christmas. And I should know, because today I'm an opinionated bitch on Rum. Ha, No computer program has EVER resorted to tablebases to Soundly Flog me. Cheers, Tina Long > > > > Christophe
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.