Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 06:53:57 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... Tablebases have a great future no doubt. But what is available at the moment (4-5 pieces) its value for Rebel is not more than 5-10 elo I would say because: a) most cases are simply covered by chess knowlegde; b) the loss of speed during search because of all the disc access. So I don't think I am wrong when the subject is Rebel. Things might change dramatically when for instance the complete 6 pieces become available. +100 elo easily for chess programs. Ed
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.