Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:44:13 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 11:52:52, Peter Skinner wrote: >What is Crafty's strength with tablebases, and without? >Or any program for that matter? >Are tablebases really that needed for these engines that use them to perform >well? > >Only reason I ask is, I watch several games in a series between Little Goliath, >and Crafty 17.10, and Little Goliath played the endgame better than Crafty did >with tablebases? > >Why would this be? > >How much weaker would Crafty be let's say without them? > >Many engines play endgames perfectly without tablebases, and usually do a bit >better than ones that use them. They may not move instantly, but they certainly >get the job done.... First, no engine plays the endgame perfectly without tablebases. To prove this, set up a position and use crafty vs them and watch the output. They will _not_ mate in the minumum number of moves or even draw theoretically drawn endings. That is a bit of a stretch. I haven't seen many cases of LG outplaying Crafty in endgames, but they certainly happen. _any_ program gets outplayed in the endgame at times. Including GM players doesn't change this a bit. But there are cases where the databases turn a draw into a win if one side doesn't have them. Or they turn a loss into a draw. Those are the important cases...
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.