Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 18:19:00 03/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2005 at 10:34:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 11, 2005 at 02:25:01, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>kqrkq vs kqkqr -- why do we need both -- if we have wtm and btm, isn't this >>redundant or am I missing something here ? >> > >where do you see a kqkqr table? All the fives are kxxkx, no kxkxx tables exist >that I know of... > EGDB for chessmaster -- different EGTB's that only use wtm and not the compliment. I was editing a Chessmaster EGDB script to generate Nalimov's EGTB's and did not realize that Chessmaster EGDB did not use the btm compliment. So when I saw it in the script, it threw me off since I knew Nalimov's was using the btm compliment and I coould not undestand why that would be in the script. Of course it is appropriate for EGDB's , but not for EGTB's. > > >>Thanks, >> >>Michael >> >>btw, I got sidetracked on making a very compatible 32 bit Crafty 19.19 for non >>SSE AMD processors tonight -- will do it tomorrow night ... >> >>Tonight I was working on compiling a Opteron specific, SMP enabled tbgen.exe. >> >>It generates all 3 and 4 man ETGB in 11:00 minutes flat on a dual Opteron >>running at 2.0 Ghz. >> >>Will let you know tommorrow how long the 5 man set take - but my question above >>puzzles me. I believe if you both wtm and btm sides, you do not need both kqrkq >>and kqkqr and there are other combinations like that too ...but if somebody >>could explain , that would be great. >> >>best, >> >>Michael
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.