Author: Steffen Jakob
Date: 07:43:35 08/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2003 at 10:32:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 11, 2003 at 10:08:22, Steffen Jakob wrote: > >>On August 11, 2003 at 01:40:11, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>// ... >> >>>This is the same topic as with mating with knight+bishop. Implement or not while >>>the tbs solve it. >>>As a programmer I wouldn't waste my time implementing already solved and >>>available (!) knowledge. >> >>In general it´s not available everywhere, because most engines restrict the >>tablebase access in the search tree. E.g. they may not access the tablebase >>behind a certain search depth or e.g. in the qsearch. Therefore it makes sense >>to implement knowledge even if there are tablebases available. > >I do not see how that knowledge can help for KBN vs K that is the example that >eas given. He was also talking about "already solved and available knowledge". I thought it was obvious that I didn´t have KBNK in mind. KRPKR is a good example. Greetings, Steffen. >You are right about other endgames like KRP vs KR because knowledge which >endgames are draws can help but in KBN vs K all programs gives the stronger side >a winning score so knowledge how to win the game is not important for the final >result if the engines use 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.