Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 07:34:20 06/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2003 at 21:15:24, James T. Walker wrote:
>On June 14, 2003 at 08:54:47, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On June 14, 2003 at 08:18:08, James T. Walker wrote:
>>
>>>"Furthermore, the programs will have no access to the EGTB so that we can see
>>>the proper endgame knowledge of the engines."
>>>
>>>This statement implies that tablebases are "improper" endgame knowledge!?
>>>Tablebases shorten games (time) and I suspect some engines depend on them for
>>>many positions where it would be tedious to program special knowledge for each
>>>position(KNNKP/KBNK etc). Leaving them out is a mistake in my opinion.
>>
>> In the sense I do understand "knowledge" for chess
>> programs, the EGTB must no be used. You may of course
>> be right that some programs depend more than others
>> from EGTB. But cannot the same difference be said if
>> some programs do handle the EGTB access much more effective
>> than others? And as already said: it's just our aim
>> to learn a bit more about such things and differences.
>> Personally spoken, I do not think that Shredder704 will
>> take last place because of missing tablebases.
>> Kurt
>
>To put it another way, what is the downside of using tablebases?
>Jim
Hi Jim
A good question ... I "resign" ... and as you have surely
noticed, we have changed our mind and are using the 3- and
4-men EGTB in our tournament "RK 2003"
Kurt
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.