Author: Jim Bond
Date: 18:58:19 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 20:58:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On May 03, 2003 at 16:50:31, Jim Bond wrote: > >>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 > >What's your problem? > >Uri never said that rules are accurate in all cases or that tablebases are >unnecessary and should never be probed. > >Of COURSE you can find cases where rules will not apply. That's when you do a >lookup. The fact that you can find these cases completely misses the point. > >-Tom You are welcome to adding your opinions. I guess you want to clarified what Uri has been trying to say - more TB probing is bad. Do you agree? Jim
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.