Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:19:24 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 14:55:13, James T. Walker wrote: >On June 15, 2001 at 08:02:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 15, 2001 at 06:26:54, Paul Petersson wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2001 at 14:59:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>...these games had been taken into account 3 days ago? >>>> >>> >>>A more interesting question is what the ranking of CT14 would be if we had >>>tested it in the CP GUI like GT2! I'm pretty sure it would have done better than >>>the CB version. >> >>Why? >> >>It should do the same because the engine is the important thing and the GUI is >>totally unimportant. >> >>Uri > >Uri how can you make a statement like that when you know that Chessbase has done >things in the past like send "new" commands and reset hash tables in programs. I know it but this is old news and it is not a problem for native engines. >The GUI also does some handling of EGTB files and some early errors were caused >by the GUI. I do not understand what is the reason that the GUI does handling EGTB. This is the job of the engine and the GUI should simply do nothing about it. I read that it does it for non native engines but I thought that at least for native engines the situation is better(I understood that Crafty had no problme with tablebases as a native engine). The problem with tablebases is not a new problem so I see no logical reason for christophe to agree that the GUI will do the job if Tiger under the CP GUI knows to play with part of the tablebases better. Remember Fritz 5.32 having problems with Rook & pawn endgame >tablebases? Yes but I considered it as the fault of the programmer that he agreed to trust wrong handling of tablebases by the GUI. 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.