Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 23:05:16 08/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2003 at 01:40:11, Harald Faber wrote: >On August 11, 2003 at 00:30:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 10, 2003 at 12:28:25, Heinz-Josef Schumacher wrote: >> >>>>So a senseful recommendation IMO is to play and test the programs either >>>"out-of-the-box" or with a complete set of tbs. >>> >>>Yes, it's my opion too. To test with the incomplete "Fritz Endgame Turbo" is >>>stupid non-sense! If the SSDF people don't have a complete set of 5 men tbs, >>>they should test better only with 4 men tbs! >>e to >> >>Why? A _sensible_ program can do just fine without complete EGTB's. >>Particularly >>when you have the case of (say) KXPKX, but you don't have the KXQKX table to >>encourage the promotion correctly. >> >>That is solvable. >> >>Since it has caused significant problems for many programs for a long time, it >>is >>something that deserves fixing. > > >Bob, it is always the same senseless discussion. >You say a "good" program solves this problem, we ask why? >This is the same topic as with mating with knight+bishop. Implement or not while >the tbs solve it. Not everyone has the resources for tbs. In their absence, it's kind of silly for a GM strength program to not understand these problems, especially programs for which someone paid money. What a jip. Embarrassing too, since some amatuer programs do understand them. I think Bob has a good point. MH >As a programmer I wouldn't waste my time implementing already solved and >available (!) knowledge.
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.