Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:10:50 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 14:37:48, Jim Bond wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 14:07:59, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 13:44:27, Jim Bond wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2003 at 10:32:08, George Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>> After playing Shredder 7.04 against Several Strong programs on two separate >>>>computers I am very "Impressed" . I wonder though what distinguishes this >>>>program from the other top programs, what gives it the edge in playing strength? >>>> I think it is shredders fantastic endgame prowness. All six of the games it won >>>>against century 4 was in the endgame, however rebel seemed to play even with it >>>>tactically in all the middlegames >>> >>>This could be partly due Shredder's ability to probe ending game table base. I >>>tend to find that, in its analysis window, the tb numbers are much bigger than >>>other engines. >> >>I disagree >>Bigger is not better. >> >>I did not check your theory but if shredder probes ending tablebases more than >>other programs then it suggests that shredder has not knowledge that it can >>trust without tablebases. >> >>A program with knowledge is not going to probe tablebases in a lot of tablebases >>positions because calculating the winner by knowledge is faster. >> >>Uri > >Calculating the winner by knowledge may be faster but is it more accurate than >tablebase? I am afraid not. The table base is a superset of conventional >theory or knowledge. It is an oracle. Shredder might be going for accuracy as >oppose to speed. > >Jim It is not less accurate if you do it only in the right part of the cases. The right part can be bigger when the program has more knolwedge. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.