Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:28:49 08/11/03
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. >As a programmer I wouldn't waste my time implementing already solved and >available (!) knowledge. That's not the point. There are two: 1. You don't "implement" already solved and available knowledge. You just recognize that has already been solved, and avoid the trap of assuming that if you don't have the table, you can't trade into that ending because it isn't a mate. 2. Any "problem" that is recurring, for many people, is a problem that is worth eliminating. This happens regularly, and it is _not_ difficult to solve, so that you can have the "pawn" table but not the "promotion" tables, and still play the ending reasonably. Rather than drawing.
This page took 0.01 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.