Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 15:27:54 08/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2005 at 16:28:39, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >Of course all those tables [WDL] have drawback: you should assume that chess program >that uses only them will be able to win a won position. E.g. it knows that OTB >position is won. It know that out of all moves 3 moves also lead to won >positions. Unfortunately it may not be able to figure out that current position >is (say) mate in 30, move A leads to mate in 29, while moves B and C -- to mate >in 35, and it may decide to make the wrong move. Hopefully such situation is >rare enough, but I suspect it is more often when position is complex enough -- >i.e. exactly when you need TBs. I think, we can be sure, that no engine will be able to get the game theoretical result in many complicated endgames with WDL tables only. KBBKN is the first, that comes to mind. Some KQPKQ positions need many moves, until a pawn advances (many even over 50 ...). Searching only between the game theoretical correct moves will not be enough, to make progress. Of course, I suspect that in practice, this will happen very rarely, although I have seen KBBKN in engine games more than once. To me it comes as a surprise, that the 4 pos/byte compresses to smaller sizes, than the 5 pos/byte method. That it gets a better compression ratio is of course no surprise at all. 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.