Author: Mike Hood
Date: 09:38:55 09/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks for the reply, Eugene. I'm willing to accept I may be wrong, but how do you explain the discrepancies I named? Mike On September 28, 2001 at 11:11:33, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >There is no bug in TBSTAT, and statistics is correct. > >Eugene > >On September 28, 2001 at 08:27:37, Mike Hood wrote: > >>On September 19, 2001 at 04:23:39, Les Fernandez wrote: >> >>>Has anyone tabulated the total win-lose-draw-broken positions for first the 3 >>>then 4 and then the 5 piece sets? I know that the information is available on >>>Bobs ftp site but hoping that someone has already done it for both WTM and BTM >>>so I dont have to do them one by one. >>> >>>ie: >>> >>>EGTB WINS LOSE DRAW BROKEN >>> >>> 3 >>> 4 >>> 5 >> >>This is theoretically possible, but not very sensible at the moment. Most of the >>TBS files on Robert Hyatt's ftp server are defective, probably due to a bug in >>TBSTAT. >> >>For instance: >> >>krrk.tbs -- On black's move there are 1032 positions that lose in 16, but on >>white's move the longest mate is Mate in 7. >> >>kqrkr.tbs -- On black's move there are 60 moves that are Mate in 5, but there >>are ZERO moves that are Mate in 4. >> >>kbpk.tbs -- On white's move there is 1 position that is Mate in 31, but there >>are ZERO moves that are Mate in 30. >> >>In most of the TBS files the number of broken positions is not listed. >> >>Over 50% of the TBS files are obviously defective, and I can't vouch for the >>validity of the others. And, to ask a naive question, shouldn't the number of >>Mates/Losses/Draws in a pawnless tablebase always be divisible by 4? >> >>I've reported the bug to Eugene by email a few weeks ago, but it hasn't been >>fixed yet. >> >>Mike >> >>**** Dansez de la apusul pana la rasaritul soarelui ****
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.