Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:40:53 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 13:23:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Everytime you find a tablebase position, you ask if white is on the move. If it is, you do a 1 ply search from here that will return the same result as if you have both tablebases and you probe immediately. Regards, Miguel
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.