Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:08:59 03/27/00
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. > > > > Christophe I am not wild about helping the competition, but you have one huge hold. You don't know that KPB vs K is a draw if the wrong colored bishop is on the board. Ditto for KPPB vs K, assuming all P's are rook pawns. I have seen Crafty draw lost endings when you let it swindle you into such an ending. One ending was you had a king, and pawns on a and b file + wrong bishop. Crafty had a pawn on the a file. It pushed and you took with your b pawn rather than just pushing past it and winning... Consider that my tip of the year. :) There are others. But I also have them too. :)
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.