Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 09:01:27 08/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2004 at 11:03:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 10, 2004 at 05:25:42, Chris Taylor wrote: > >>Considered using the tablebases? You recently mentioned the endgame has your >>attention. > >>Pro Deo has a good book! Plays a dam good middgame! So why not take advantage >>of the Tbs.... Best of both worlds. IMHO... A good endgame, and look up tables >>to allow ProDeo to play the ending, even better. For example, I have some of >>the 6 piece, and I have noticed the programs that use these, seem to benefit >>from the use of them. > >I don't believe TB's add that much strength to an engine. would you say the same for when 7 pieces (eventually) come out, that they would not add much. duncan The engine itself >handles 80-90% of KRPKR accurate, the same applies for KBPKB, KPK has a 99% hit. >The only exception I see is KQPKQ. All the other endgame types occur seldom. So >what you see is that so now and then the engine is generous and gives away half >a point. Big deal. And as the saying says, "it's better to give than to >receive", this in the spirit of the program name :) > >Reason-2, ordinary laziness. Programming TB's look boring, especially the >testing. > >Reason-3, there are some structural problems in the endgame. Working on that has >my priority because I believe it will bring me more. > > >>One thing I will say is that ProDeo is a big improvement over previous releases. >> I have seen some really good play, exciting chess. I am pleased to see and use >>the software. Many thanks for all your hard work. > >Thank you for your kind words. > >My best, > >Ed
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.