Author: blass uri
Date: 08:59:39 04/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2000 at 11:18:37, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. Why do you think that a program should be capable to do it? I see no reason to teach a program things that it knows because of tablebases. Opening is a different story because a program can be out of book very quickly after few moves and need to know to play there. The target of the nimzo7.32's programmer was to create the best program when it can use tablebases and not to create the best program when it cannot use tablebases. By your logic Nimzo7.32 is weaker than previous versions of nimzo in the endgame because nimzo7.32 needs tablebases to win KRK endgame when previous versions do not need tablebases. 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.