Author: Kevin Strickland
Date: 07:13:03 04/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2002 at 04:54:58, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 21, 2002 at 00:50:20, Kevin Strickland wrote: > >>On April 21, 2002 at 00:24:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 21, 2002 at 00:06:06, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>First, some time ago *you* wrote that you have to use 2 copies of EGTB cache and >>>>decompression tables because you uses processes, not threads. I would not call >>>>such the design "very professional done". >>> >>>You are not nice here. I understand why. You try to distract the people. >>>the EGTB code has 0% influence onto the running time of the speed >>>test people. In openings position you don't need EGTBs!!!!!! >> >> >>He is simply stating again that the programming of Diep is not professionally >>done. Not that his egtb code is the best. >> >> >>> >>>99% of the chessgame the EGTBs are unimportant. A few years ago >>>when most programs sucked ass in endgames, they were very important. >>> >>>Now they aren't!!!! >> >> >>Not true. There are still many endgames where programs are simply clueless about >>the position, and the egtbs help enormously. And moron can see that. > >egtbs do not help enormously. >There are more important things for a lot of chess programs > >Null move pruning,hash tables,pondering and book and internal iterative >deepening are examples. > >The version of movei that is playing in the 5th division of the winboard program >does not use none of these things and has 5.5 out of 6(all the opponents used >book but it did not help them,part of the opponents even used hash tables but it >also did not help them to win). > >The latest version use null move but it is not stable so I cannot send it for >tournaments today. > >At blitz it can beat the previous version but my tests show that it has a bug >and in my last game against the previous version it simply crushed at depth 15 >after getting an winning endgame in the following position: > >[D]8/8/8/1p1K4/1P6/P2bB3/6p1/5k2 b - - 0 58 > >Not that even without the bug I am not sure if it could win the game > >it planned to play the blunder g1Q instead of Bc2 that is winning but it crushed >at depth 16 and it is possible that it could change it's mind at tht depth. > >Note that it does not know that KB vs KP is a draw and it only knows that KB vs >K is a draw and it is not going to help it to avoid the blunder. > >The fact that the only way that black can win the game after Bc2 is by zunzwang >is also not going to help it to find the win even if it finds the right move(I >plan to do a program that is not blind to zunzwang but before doing it I need to >check that a program that is not blind to zunzwangs has no bugs). > ><snipped> >>Most programs use 20 megabytes of ram to use them. How in today's systems that >>almost always have more than 256 megabytes of ram is 20 megabytes even really >>significant? > > >Not true. > >Most programs do not use tablebases. > >I looked at the list of the winboard engines and less than 1/3 of them use >tablebases. > >I also know that a lot of programs do not use pondering but I did not count to >find if they are a majority of the chess programs. > >Uri I said "Most programs use 20 megabytes of ram to use them". Not _most_ programs use them. Of the ones that use them when I see how much ram is used for decompression and indices it usually rounds to 20M. I have seen some games where even Gambit Tiger has a clear win. I could make the moves to win, yet it shows a draw score until the egtbs kick in. I said there are still some positions that programs do not understand, thus egtbs are still very important. To test this my account on ICC will play for a month without tbs, and a month with tbs. Using Crafty I guarantee that the rating difference will be high.
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.