Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 20:14:26 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2003 at 21:58:19, Jim Bond wrote: >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 Uri has been saying nothing of the sort--he's saying that a probe is not necessarily good, i.e., when you can get a perfectly accurate rule-based answer much faster. -Tom
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.