Author: Mike Hood
Date: 15:09:51 04/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2002 at 17:46:35, Mike S. wrote: >On April 07, 2002 at 14:41:20, Mike Hood wrote: > >>(...) > >>This is a matter of opinion. I think that today's chess programmers have the >>right to assume the use of 5-piece tablebases. > >I would strongly recommend *not* to rely on tablebases, at least not for major >parts of endgame knowledge (i.e. bacic mates). > >The assumption that everybody uses 5-piece tbs., is wrong: I don't assume this. All I'm saying is that in the computer program's handbook there should be a note saying something like "The CD contains all the 3-piece and 4-piece endgame tablebases. If you want to increase the program's endgame knowledge you can download 5-piece tablebases free of charge from the ftp site ....." >First, not many people, except computer chess fans, even know what tablebases >are. Tablebases are expert's stuff. I agree. However, their is a two-tier market for chess programs. My contention is that only an "expert" would buy a program like Fritz or any of the other top chess programs. You have to be an insider to have even heard of Fritz. A "normal" customer decides to buy a chess program, so he walks into a store and picks up either Chessmaster or Corel Chess off the shelf, goes home with it and is overjoyed with his good purchase. I've never seen Fritz 7 or Rebel Century on the shelf in a high street store -- have you? And even if by some fluke Fritz 7 is on sale, the relatively high price and the relatively unattractive packaging will make the customer choose Chessmaster anyway. >Second, 5-piece tablebase are not always an advantage. I even doubt that they >are an advantage in more than, say 60% of practical positions, when accessed >during the search. When aren't they an advantage? The only fault I could possibly see is if a chess program accesses the tablebases too early, ie in a position where it is unlikely that exchanges will lead to a tablebase position within the next 15 or more moves. >As a consequence of that, I use 4-piece tablebases only >+RB-R, RN-R. (For 5-piece endgame analysis, I still have the Thompson tables >available.) A possible disadvantage may sometimes not be visible, because both >sides are affected. > >Third, AFAIK most programs don't access tbs. in the quiescence search (AFAIK >only Nimzo does that with it's NCD tables). Which means, missing knowledge can >not be replaced in the quiescence search by using tbs. > >I think it is a big danger for (professional) programmers, to adapt too much to >the type of users who are computer chess experts. This is an audience of a >limited number IMO. If your program is sold in big shops and can't do something >without 5-piece tablebases, 10 of 100 customers will say the program can't do it >at all (5 will use tbs., and 85 will not notice it at all :o). > >But OTOH I think, most major programs have much built-in endgame knowledge, and >do not rely on tablebases too much anyway. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl
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.