Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:02:10 03/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2000 at 23:20:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 27, 2000 at 11:15:23, blass uri wrote: > >>On March 27, 2000 at 09:53:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I do not think that b is right because you save time by not searching positions >>of 5 pieces. >> >>disc access is relevant only after a capture that leads to 5 pieces on the >>board. >>My simple logic says that if you search n plies forward then you can decide to >>call tablebases only after a capture that leads to 5 pieces and only if the >>caprure is at distance of n-d plies from the root when d is the minimal numner >>that searching d plies forward is slower than calling tablebases. >> >> > > > >That is all correct. Disk access is _not_ a problem. It doesn't slow me >down enough to be a problem at all, and the gain more than offsets the >I/O time... and if you cache stuff right, and hash the results right, the >penalty drops to almost nothing for most positions... > >And the gain... :) Disk access isn't a problem _now_ in Crafty, but it was for a while until you tuned the implementation, right? Dave
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.