Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 03:23:29 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 06:10:13, guy haworth wrote: > >See ICGA_J (2000) for Nalimov, Heinz, Haworth article on > >"Space-efficient Indexes for Endgame Tables". > >There's a factor of 8 in play because there aren't any Pawns. But with Pawns, >after you have computed the potential successor-endgames, you can slice up this >endgame according to the position-profile of the Pawns on the board. > >Thus one Pawn gives you a 4*6 = 24-way slice, 2 Pawns gives you a 24*47-way >slice. Potential for parallelising EGT-generation across a syndicate of >PC-owners. > >G Thanks. My question was different and somewhat simpler. I meant to say: the material count for R+B is 800 (say) compared to 700 for R+2P. Without six man EGTB, the latter would presumably give more practical winning chances despite seeming less advantageous froma purely material count prespective. (As a complete patzer I would prefer the 2P to the bishop in this position.). Frank
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.