Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:18:37 04/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2000 at 10:03:26, blass uri wrote: >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. A program should be capable of playing simple endgames without tablebases. Otherwise it's not a strong program IMO. Just because its capable of accessing tablebases, doesn't mean it's a part of the program. These points is also worth considering: 1) Weaker engines would appear stronger than they are. 2) Not all programs uses tablebases. >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. There's a difference between statistical knowledge and evaluation knowledge IMHO. >No EGTB tries to prevent errors also in the middle game when a move is going to >lead to the wrong endgame. That only makes my argument stronger, because the margin of evaluation error is reduced even more. Thereby making weaker programs appear stronger than they are. >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. Exactly. >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 That is your opinion, not common knowledge. From a CS viewpoint the evaluation and search routines are more important, I think. If you want to use it for analysis, you want the entire package, which isn't the point we're discussing here I believe. The Nunn positions usually have nothing to do with the positions you are most likely to analyze. Let's use an example: I want to analyze a middlegame position, which would be very common for most I believe. I'm way past the opening and has yet to reach a position where the EGTB can help me. What do I do? I think I would use the strongest search and evaluation engine available or my brain. Since I'm a lousy chess player I'd probably go with the engine :o). >I do not know >You assume that Crafty's book is better for crafty relative to Fritz's book. No, I assume that the Fritz book is better for Fritz and nothing else. Best wishes... Mogens
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.