Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:26:59 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 14:02:53, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 13:01:29, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 12:42:05, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>So let me see if I understand this conversation correctly. >>> >>>1. I state that the 6 man tables are worth 100 elo >> >>I thought you were joking, but obviously I was wrong. >> > >I have no quantitative way of accurately guessing this too - but "depends on >program" maynot be a wrong statement ? >And both are definitely agreeing that there is a non-trivial improvement in >performance - right ? Then why disagree for the sake of disagreeing !!!! > > >>> >>>2. You disagree, and state they are worth 50 elo >>> >>>3. You do this by pulling numbers out of your *** >>> >>>4. Since the full 6-man set hasn't been generated, and the elo gain is almost >>>certainly different for different programs, we are both guessing. >> >>Yes, but in this case Uri's guess is much more educated. > >Hmm , I dont see how - just 'cos there was a "women" reference ? :) >Jokes apart - the point to be taken is - they could be a SIGNIFICANT improvement >: and would be the world of difference between a loss and a draw (or a draw and >a win). >Depends on how you eval , and what you do in your search (extensions and qsearch >/threat detection). >Ofcourse , if you have a junk endgame eval with quiet decent middle game eval - >your improvement can be much higher than what both of them quote ! > >But are we not quibbling over nitty gritty details ?? 50 , 100 , 125 - what does >it matter : it would be a substantial improvement !!! In 20 years, we might be able to memory map the whole 6 man set. That would yield a stupendous Elo increase for endgames.
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.