Author: Jim Bond
Date: 23:19:17 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 02:03:25, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On May 04, 2003 at 01:07:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 03, 2003 at 23:47:13, Jim Bond wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2003 at 23:22:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On May 03, 2003 at 21:28:30, Jim Bond wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 17:52:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 03, 2003 at 17:50:36, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>I know about programs that tablebases were counter productive for mchess because >>>>>>>it probed them too much and was slowed down by asignificant factor. >>>>>> >>>>>>I meant here that mchess is an example for a program that tablebases was counter >>>>>>productive for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>If you believe that more TB probing is counter productive, you are contradicting >>>>>with Shredder - the top program. Take this position for example: >>>>> >>>>>2k5/8/7p/8/5qP1/1Q5K/8/8 w - - 0 72 >>>>> >>>>>If you run infinite analysis on it with Shredder 7.04, Fritz 0.008 and >>>>>ChessTiger 15, you will find that the Shredder accumlates TB counts about 8 >>>>>times more than Fritz and about 16 times more than ChessTiger. If TB probing is >>>>>counter productive, how come Shredder does it so much more and can still be at >>>>>the top? >>>>> >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>Just because Shredder is at the top doesn't mean it plays this particular >>>>position better than other programs, i.e., the fact that it does so many more >>>>probes does not mean that more probes are good. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>You are saying more probes does not mean that more probes are good, but you >>>cannot prove that more probe is bad either. The fact is Shredder does probes >>>and it is the top program where others does less probes and are less strong. >>>There is a correlation here wouldn't you agreed? >>> >>>Jim >> >>If I see A and I see B then it does not mean that A is the reason of B. >> > > >Bingo. "Correlation" does not necessarily imply "cause and effect." > >If program X comes in a blue box and program Y comes in a red box and X is a >better program, then the conclusion that X is better than Y, because it comes in >a blue box is the mark of pure idiocy. > > >> >>Shredder can be better than the opponents because of different reasons. >>I believe that shredder7.04 is better than the opponents also when the programs >>do not get tablebases. >> >>Uri You are correct. I have not been claiming it is a fact but it is a possibility base on observations. No one would know the truth unless he/she askes Stephan. Jim
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.