Author: James T. Walker
Date: 08:02:35 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 08:21:58, Norm Pollock wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 07:43:57, Norm Pollock wrote: > >Then there is other matter of wear and tear on >>the disk drives. > >Let me clarify this. 5 man egtb starts disk accessing with as many as 14 pieces >still on the board in a blitz game. > >When there are only 5 pieces or less, then there is hardly any disk access and >egtbs are clearly better than searching. > >But for 6-14 pieces on the board, disk accessing is taking away time >(substantial time in blitz) from searching (and wearing out your disk drive). I >think egtbs are likely a disadvantage to a strong program when there are 6-14 >pieces on the board, but are an advantage with 5 (or less) pieces on the board. Hello Norm, You may be right but I have seen many positions where the depth arrived at by the program with several pieces (more than 5) on the board is deeper when using tablebases than without them. This happens even though the NPS is significantly lower. I'm not convinced that just slowing down the NPS is always bad because when you are getting perfect knowledge at the end of your search you can know which direction to go faster. I think the book is still out on tablebases. It does vary for each position but I still believe they are a plus. Jim
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.