Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 05:18:21 12/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2004 at 02:43:50, Harald Faber wrote: >The argument is easy and logical: >The more positions you search, the more likely you reach positions from the TBs >which are relevant for the current position. >If you search for 3 sec per move it is unlikely that you hit the (right) >tablebase positions than when thinking for 1 minute e.g. I don't think, this argument is correct. It is logical, that with only probing at root, the engine must become better with TBs than without (at least when assuming, that the oppent has TBs/ will play TB positions in the game theoretical sense correctly). The default probing method of several engines seem to hurt them. So one could conclude, they will probe too often. In identical position, with a longer search, you would probe relatively more often. I suspect somehow, that the probing shapes the search tree in some cases in some way, that makes it less efficient, and that this is more decisive than the slow down through the probing. I am aware, that this sound not really logical, and of course I am aware, that a TB hit always cuts the tree. It really would be interesting if somebody analysed the Nunn endgame games, where there is a different result with and without TBs. I get a bit reminded of a material only search. It is highly efficient in the root position, but gets inefficient in some tactical positions. BTW. The Yace operators on ICC as well as his author in PB did use less aggressive probing, than default. Regards, Dieter
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.