Author: blass uri
Date: 06:46:52 03/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2000 at 09:06:01, Robert Hyatt 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 > > >Ed is wrong there. it is _amazing_ how many comp vs comp games end up in >krp vs kr, with the side without tablebases losing most of those. There are >other endings too (KQP vs KQ, see for example crafty vs nimzo in the ICCT >tournament last month). > >The wrong way to test this is to play A with, vs A without. the right way to >test this is A without vs B without, then A with vs B without. But A ought to >be reasonably close to B without tablebases... I think it depends on the program and on the time control. I have no data to know if Ed is right or wrong. If a program has more knowledge about basic endgames tablebases are less productive. I remember a claim from chessbits that tablebases are more productive in fast time control and I do not know if this claim is right. I remember that the claim was that hiarcs7.32 did better than hiarcs7 at fast time control because of tablebases but in slow time control the better knowledge of hiarcs7 in the middle game was more important. Uri
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.