Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 11:33:05 03/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2000 at 09:18:31, James T. Walker wrote: >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 Hi! It sounds much to high. Hiarcs uses the TBs much more unefficient than Shredder4, Junior6, Fritz6 and Crafty. I guess 40 points fot these programs with the Turbo-CDs (4). For Hiarcs I guess 5-10 with the original Tbs and 10-20 with the Turbo-Cds. I think mr Kästner run a test with Hiarcs and the original Tbs and in his test the difference was 7 points. Bertil
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.