Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 15:02:02 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 05:23:02, Richard Pijl wrote: >On December 05, 2002 at 11:40:34, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On December 05, 2002 at 07:51:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>Some programs have a workaround that makes the ugliest >>>appearances of this problem go away. >> >>Can you give an example, preferably from a real game, where known workarounds >>would not make the problem go away? >> >>In the discussed case, probably even using the normal search time instead of >>exiting search early after a mate score woulh have helped. >> >>>But that doesn't >>>fix the problem - it still occurs everywhere else in the >>>search tree. >> >>I don't understand this. Why should there be any problem in the search tree? >>Until a "critical" situation is at the root, what should be the problem? >> > >Tablebases might force a program in a position it doesn't know how to win, for >example because the position is an exception to general rules. These positions >are possibly avoided by the chessknowledge of the program, but lured into it >because it sees a forced mate from the table bases. It might even sac material >because of it. Richard, can you please give an example (I asked the same question to GCP without getting an answer). I really thought about exactly this point, but nothing came into my mind, where this should happen. Especially, all the positions I remember seeing posted here in this context, were trivial wins. It was less than 2 hours to implement something to avoid those cases of problems with incomplete TBs. Several similar ideas have been posted here - all easy to implement. I repeat myself - allmost allways not stopping the search early, when seeing a mate score, would even be enough (but better fixes exist). Cheers, Dieter
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.