Author: Jim Bond
Date: 13:50:31 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 15:59:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 15:45:14, Jim Bond wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 15:10:50, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Not less accurate? So are you claiming you or someone can program chess >>knowledge equally or more accurate than the complete 5-men tablebase? I believe >>the fact is no body can otherwise there wouldn't be tablebase at all. People >>wouldn't have developed it in the first place. Can anyone cover all the "right >>parts" as quoted from you? Have anyone been able to? I am afraid not. >> >>Jim > >I do not use tablebases in movei but there are cases that can be evaluated >correctly without tablebases > >I can give you examples: > >KQ vs K is always a win if the position is not stalemate and findin if the >position is stalemate is faster than calling tablebases. > >KBP vs K is a draw when the bishop is blind and the king is close enough to the >corner. > >KPP vs KP is a win for the side with the pp if this side is to move and has >unstoppable pawn and the distance of the opponent's pawn to be a queen is >bigger by at least 2. > >It is possible to define a lot of rules that will be 100% correct and will cover >part of the cases. > >The main part when they can help is in positions when one side has 3 pieces >because these cases can be detected as wins in most of the cases with no errors >in the cases that they are detected as wins. > >Uri Thanks for sharing the rules. However I wonder if anyone can program a rule that can accurately solve this Queens-pawn mate in 63 ending position (126 half moves). The program would have to tell me 1, -1 or 1/2 accurately without TB. 8/4q2K/1k5p/7Q/6P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 81 My point is that in simpler cases, 100% accuracy it is possible, but in more complicate cases, without TB, it is not humanly programmable or computer searchable. I am only guessing Shredder might be taking advantage of TB to a greater degree than other programs given TB is the "truth". Jim
This page took 0.02 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.