Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 05:07:58 02/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2001 at 05:42:03, Joshua Lee wrote: >Yes some are wrong sometimes the so called solution wasn't the best according to >the tablebases. As far as 40% no this would mean 40% of around 3200 positions. >That's almost the entire ECE3 testset 1280 Positions out of MES and ECE3 and you >could include ICMP the mates aren't all endgame i think. What a program using EGTBs considers to be the critical line often is at variance with what a human would consider critical. This is because the yardstick that such programs use is "distance to mate", however a human uses "difficulty to win" (for a human). So what you may see is a human will discard an obviously losing move, but that forestalls mate longer for a line that gets mated quicker, but is more obscure (to a human). If this is what the 40% figure refers to, then it might have some plausibility, but to call such studies to be in error is way off base.
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.