Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:18:31 03/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2000 at 05:30:50, blass uri wrote: >On March 28, 2000 at 05:13:32, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On March 28, 2000 at 04:39:32, Bertil Eklund wrote: >> >>>On March 28, 2000 at 03:20:18, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On March 28, 2000 at 01:24:18, Bertil Eklund 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>>Hi! >>>>> >>>>>I agreed totally with you some months ago but todays best programs uses the TBs >>>>>in the search very efficient. In example Hiarcs and Nimzo began to find the Tbs >>>>>with 10-11 pieces on the board (tournament time) but today Crafty, Fritz6, >>>>>Junior6 and Shredder4 find the TBs with 15-16 pieces on the board. These four >>>>>programs are probably the best in endgames, only Tiger without TBs come close. >>>>> >>>>>I guess the above programs earns 25-50 elo with TBs. >>>>> >>>>>Bertil >>>> >>>>1)The fact that they find the tablebases does not say in how many cases the >>>>tablebases change the result and we cannot know from this about the elo >>>>improvement. >>>>The only way to know is by testing the program with tablebases and the program >>>>without tablebases. >>>> >>>>2)It is known that crafty also could find the tablebases with 15-16 pieces some >>>>monthes ago. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>Hi! >>> >>>I have followed a lot of games, when the above mentioned programs wins the >>>endgame. I don't think it's only a coincidence that these programs and maybe >>>Tiger seems to play better endgames than i.e. Nimzo, Hiarcs, Rebel Genius Mchess >>>and so on. >>> >>>2. Yes and Crafty plays very good endgames. >>>3. Endgames becomes more and more important for todays programs, and I guess >>>Tablebases is the most efficient way to go. >> >>I agree with you. I didn't count the games in which tablebases were decisive, >>but I think they add at least half a point every 20 games or so. > > >It is hard to count the number of games because we often do not know what was >the result without tablebases. > >I think that tablebases are sometimes counter productive when you play against >someone who does not use tablebases because the program may prefer a simple draw >instead of going to a drawn KRP vs KR that it can practically win. > >The program may prefer a simple loss of KQ vs KQPP instead of going to a lost KQ >vs KQP that it can practically draw. > >The only way to know the value of tablebases is by testing and you cannot know >only by watching games. > >Uri Hello Uri, A few weeks ago I posted the results of my tablebase test. I used Chess Tiger vs Hiarcs 7.32. I played 200 games using Hiarcs with tablebases and 200 games with Hiarcs without tablebases. The difference in performance was approximately 40 rating points. This is a relatively small sample and there is of course room for error but is a good starting point for estimating the value of tablebases. Jim Walker
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.