Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:23:12 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 12:03:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 13, 2001 at 10:09:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 13, 2001 at 08:31:09, William Penn wrote: >> >>>I suspect this has been discussed before but I didn't pay attention, so please >>>pardon my redundancy. If you could just point me in the right direction, much >>>appreciated... >>> >>>Can't we make some assumptions without compromising very much practical playing >>>strength and significantly reduce the size of the endgame tablebases? For >>>example it seems a waste to generate separate positions for "white to move" and >>>"black to move". >> >>How would you handle all the common zugzwang positions? black king at e6, >>white king at e4, white pawn at e3. White to move draws. Black to move >>loses. > >There is a solution for it. >You probe the tablebases only when the right side is to move. > >I understand that calculating the moves when you are in a tablebases position >becomes more comlicated but it can be solved by 2 ply search. > >Uri This implies you _only_ stop the search when a specific side is on move. This will break the basic idea of minimax to a degree, because some positions will be searched one ply deeper than they should be, and that means comparing apples and oranges in the evaluations those two searches return.
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.