Author: Jim Bond
Date: 23:26:09 05/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 02:19:17, Jim Bond wrote: >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 I apologize: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
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.