Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:17:32 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 12:04:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 01, 2001 at 09:56:06, Mike Hood wrote: > >>Eugene, I think I understand your answer in part, but please help me further. >>I've quoted the whole file kbpk.tbs below, and I have three questions: >> >>1) There is a Mate in 31 listed, but no Mate in 30 or Mate in 29. Is this >>because the Mate in 31 involves an immediate transition into another tablebase, >>such as kpk.tbs? Maybe if you could tell me the exact position of this Mate in >>31 it would be obvious to me. > >Most likely it is a transposition into a KBN vs K endings. In a position >where promoting to a queen would be a stalemate. [D]/3P/KBk////// w >> >>2) Why are no broken positions listed for btm? I presume that "wka1 wba6 wpa7 >>bkb1" is at least one broken position for btm. >> >>3) All the numbers ought to be even, because every position containing one pawn >>can be mirrored left-right. Is the presence of odd numbers because your >>statistics are the number of positions in your already simplified/compressed >>chess board? Reported numbers are number of positions in file, i.e. after indexing removed loat of duplicate and illegal positions. Including illegal position you reported. Eugene >>Thanks, >> >>Mike >> >>kbpk.tbs >>======== >>wtm: Draws: 174804 >>wtm: Mate in 31: 1 >>wtm: Mate in 28: 1 >>wtm: Mate in 26: 11 >>wtm: Mate in 25: 4 >>wtm: Mate in 24: 25 >>wtm: Mate in 23: 167 >>wtm: Mate in 22: 476 >>wtm: Mate in 21: 1917 >>wtm: Mate in 20: 6110 >>wtm: Mate in 19: 17489 >>wtm: Mate in 18: 36103 >>wtm: Mate in 17: 85135 >>wtm: Mate in 16: 150419 >>wtm: Mate in 15: 186502 >>wtm: Mate in 14: 209994 >>wtm: Mate in 13: 283840 >>wtm: Mate in 12: 406655 >>wtm: Mate in 11: 460888 >>wtm: Mate in 10: 442601 >>wtm: Mate in 9: 440135 >>wtm: Mate in 8: 436186 >>wtm: Mate in 7: 406369 >>wtm: Mate in 6: 303115 >>wtm: Mate in 5: 157067 >>wtm: Mate in 4: 68023 >>wtm: Mate in 3: 29622 >>wtm: Mate in 2: 9838 >>wtm: Mate in 1: 3118 >>wtm: Broken positions: 500513 >>btm: Lost in 0: 117 >>btm: Lost in 1: 873 >>btm: Lost in 2: 2793 >>btm: Lost in 3: 8892 >>btm: Lost in 4: 29591 >>btm: Lost in 5: 84157 >>btm: Lost in 6: 226693 >>btm: Lost in 7: 415728 >>btm: Lost in 8: 455096 >>btm: Lost in 9: 447616 >>btm: Lost in 10: 430805 >>btm: Lost in 11: 422716 >>btm: Lost in 12: 394004 >>btm: Lost in 13: 338834 >>btm: Lost in 14: 282260 >>btm: Lost in 15: 243794 >>btm: Lost in 16: 209974 >>btm: Lost in 17: 137192 >>btm: Lost in 18: 70856 >>btm: Lost in 19: 33990 >>btm: Lost in 20: 13627 >>btm: Lost in 21: 7010 >>btm: Lost in 22: 4168 >>btm: Lost in 23: 2492 >>btm: Lost in 24: 944 >>btm: Lost in 25: 384 >>btm: Lost in 26: 129 >>btm: Lost in 27: 48 >>btm: Lost in 28: 24 >>btm: Lost in 31: 2 >>btm: Draws: 859923 >> >> >> >>On September 28, 2001 at 13:37:24, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>DTM, not DTC. After capture or promotion resulting position is stored in the >>>other TB, not in the current one. >>> >>>Eugene >>> >>>On September 28, 2001 at 12:38:55, Mike Hood wrote: >>> >>>>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
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.