Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:42:18 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 18:21:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I said in most cases and I talk only about good programs that at least at the level of the top amateurs. No doubt that there are cases when tablebases help but I do not think that they increase the rating of programs by more than 20 elo. Uri
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.