Author: Jim Bond
Date: 07:56:15 05/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2003 at 10:23:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2003 at 10:09:55, Uri Blass wrote: > ><snipped> >>Nobody said that tablebases cannot help >> >>The point is that the fact that shredder is better in endgames can >>be explained by other factors and I think based on my experience that other >>factors can explain it better. >> >>I believe based on my experience that shredder7.04(without tablebases) is better >>than other programs in endgames. >> >>In most endgames the tablebases are simply irrelevant for the final result. >> >>Endgames are not only positions with few pieces in the board but also position >>when both sides have 6 pawns knight orbishop and rook and >>even if there are few logical lines >>that lead to tablebases(often they are not) they are not >>forced and knowing the results of them is not going to change the move of the >>program. >> >>possible reasons for shredder's success in the endgame or gettting better >>endgames may be better search rules and better evaluation of endgames. >> >>Uri > >Another point that I think about is that it is possible that different programs >define number of tablebases probes in a different way. > Now you are second guessing the numbers but are there any observable ground for that? >If shredder count probe every time that it get to a tablebase position even if >it can read the score from hash tables then it may get different result than >programs that count probe only in cases that they really probe the tablebases. > >Uri
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.