Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Computer calculated tables

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:21:10 09/10/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 10, 2002 at 15:53:23, Uri Blass wrote:

>On September 10, 2002 at 12:49:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:25:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:18:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:06:27, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The value of the endgame tablebases in chess is also small and programs probably
>>>>>get no more than 20 elo from them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Researched against human chessplayers? Or from your experience in clean comp vs.
>>>>comp practice?
>>>>
>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>
>>>I do not think that there is a big difference.
>>
>>I don't know. Nut let's see.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>based on comp-comp games tablebases changed the results only in minority of
>>>the cases.
>>
>>
>>Ok, at least with both sides having tables... or at least input about the
>>importance of certain endgames. See below.
>
>I remember that there was tests when only one programs used tablebases.
>There are also commercial programs that do not use tablebases(I am not sure if
>the last version of chessmaster or Rebel but clearly previous versions of them
>and Hiarcs7 that does not use tablebases is at the same level as hiarcs7.32 that
>is using tablebases).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Humans usually do not get simple endgames against computers.
>>
>>
>>This might be true but what does it mean? I'm referring to the fact that the
>>leading programs use a feature for the early detection of certain endgame
>>possibilities. So progs do not only rely on the tables themselves but also on
>>early help for judging much later and only "possible" endgames. At least I
>>understood it this way. Now my point is, that if the tables are not allowed, the
>>mentioned control is impossible what increases the possibilities to make basic
>>mistakes in the middle game. Seems trivial enough.
>
>
>I know but in most cases the games are decided before tablebases are relevant
>Tablebases are usually not relevant in the middlegame because there is no
>logical line in the tree of the programs that leads to position with 5 or 6
>pieces(if there are few tablebases hits because of some illogical lines in the
>search tree they usually change nothing and may only do the program 0.01%
>faster).
>
>Even in games that tablebases are relevant programs in most cases do not blunder
>in the relevant positions even without tablebases thanks to search.
>
>Uri


I wouldn't go quite that far.  I've seen more than one program, commercial
or amateur doesn't matter, enter a dead lost KRP KR ending, and doing so at
_their_ option, not because it was forced...

Ditto for KNN vs KP...



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.