Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 20:35:09 06/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
Vincent is at least partially right, and probably 100% right. TBs are useful *before* the position arose OTB. If the program probes during the search than it, for example, can find a winning exchange when there are still 10-12 pieces left, or it can avoid exchanging to the position that is drawn despite programs' advantage. So it is possible that can win that event *if his program used TBs, and opponent did not*. I cannot say what would happen if all the programs used TBs, as I am not a chessplayer myself and cannot evaluate the positions 5-10 moves before the final ones. I have to ask good chessplayer and trust his opinion, and Vincent definitely is much better chessplayer than me :-) Eugene On June 07, 2002 at 22:26:02, Kevin Strickland wrote: >>You are not representing the truth. You take positions too far. >>perhap syou learn one day WHEN having TBs is good thing. >> >>having TBs is good to prevent exchange TOWARDS drawn or lost endgames, >>*moves* before they get on the board. >> >>understand? > >In these games by the time that tbs would have _been_ useful Diep was either in >a draw, or lost. How would tbs help in any of the situations BEFORE they can >take effect? Suddenly they are used in the middlegame? > >Come on Vincent.. tbs would not have enabled you to win the event. If at most >they would have helped gain .5 points. That still leaves you in the same spot. > >That is all I am trying to prove.. tbs would not have helped you win the event. >You lost the event due to Diep playing poorly in the middlegame.. not the >endgames... one step at a time... > >Unless of course there were 32 man tbs in '99 that we all don't know about.
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.