Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:54:21 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 06:10:21, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >There is a problem with tablebases. > >No, they don't produce wrong answers. And no, they don't make engines play >weaker. The problem is that engines would rather be -9 and not in TBs than see >mate against itself and be in TBs. I have one good example, from a game my >modified Crafty played on ICC, and I may try to find it, if possible. But I do >remember what happened: > >I had something like a knight and a pawn, and my opponent had 2 knights and a >pawn, about to promote. I had the choice to let him promote, and have a score >of about -9. I would easily lose. My other choice was to sacrifice my knight >for his pawn, and enter a lost KNNKP endgame, somewhere around Mate in 75. I >would not easily lose this, unless my opponent had the TB, in which case it >could be a draw by 50-moves. Excuse me, but what am I missing? Isn't a KNNKP ending almost always a draw (assuming nothing special) if the side with the pawn wants it to be? Cannot the side with the pawn force the draw (regardless of 50 move rule) since KNNK is a draw? What do you mean by a "lost KNNKP endgame"? KarinsDad :) > >I forced Crafty to enter the KNNKP endgame, and got a draw out of it. > >Had I not done so, Crafty would have preferred the -9 score, which would >eventually lose very easily due to the opponent's new Queen. > >I'm wondering if anyone has experimented with making the engine prefer difficult >lost TB endings over easily lost non-TB endings, especially in cases like KNNKP. > I think this could at least turn a few lost games into draws (as it did for >me), and possibly something better could come of it if some interesting new >ideas were formulated based on this. > >Jeremiah
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.