Author: blass uri
Date: 07:03:26 04/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2000 at 09:09:27, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 27, 2000 at 08:17:40, blass uri wrote: > > >>I disagree here. >> >>the possibility to use the nalimov tablebases is part of the engine. >> >>This is not the same as opening book. > >I think we should agree to disagree regarding this subject. > >>I am interested in the ability of programs to analyze positions and nalimov >>tablebases are totally relevant because programs can use them not only at the >>root. > >They're very useful at many things, but that is not the point. If you want an >reasonable comparison of the engines themselves, everything must go. I disagree because tablebases are part of the engine. Some engines were developed under the assumption that there are tablebases. I read that nimzo7.32 does not know some simple endgame likr KRK because it assumes it can use tablebases for them. > >>If using tablebases of opening and middle game position can help programs not >>only at the root then I think that these tablebases should also be allowed. > >This would eliminate the need for new ideas concerning the adding of chess >knowledge. Adding tablebases for evey conceivable ascpect sounds rather silly >and would be impossible. Tablebases are chess knowledge. I do not see why some rules of search to find the right move by search and evaluation are knowledge when tablebases are not knowledge. > >>I think that practically there is no perfect informatio about opening positions >>when programs are out of book and using the idea of big tablebases of opening >>positions and evaluation can be a problem because of the fact that the programs >>will be slower(mainly in cases when there are no tablebases hits and you waste >>time about every node) >> >>This is not the case in the nalimov tablebases because in this case you do not >>need to waste time after a move to check for tablebases hits if it is not a >>capture in the endgame > >The opening book tries to prevent stupid opening moves. EGTB prevents stupid >endgame moves. No EGTB tries to prevent errors also in the middle game when a move is going to lead to the wrong endgame. > >>How do you want to test program with no starting position. >>It is impossible to play games with no starting positions. > >When you play a game against a human opponent, do you agree on the opening you >play. The chess program will make a move without an opening book. Thrust me on >this. You test by this way knowledge about the opening position without opening book and if one engine has problems with this position by search then it has a disadvantage. The only reason to test engines is to know which program is better for analysis and not for games and in this case it is better to use positions out of book because people use engines to analyse usually these positions > >>I think that using starting positions like the ssdf positions out of book is >>better because these are positions from practical games and the book of crafty >>in the ssdf games is similiar to the book of Fritz6a. > >That is an advantage to Fritz6a. I do not know You assume that Crafty's book is better for crafty relative to Fritz's book. It is not clear that this assumption is cprrect and it is possible that Fritz's book is better than Crafty's book for Crafty. Uri
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.