Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:32:01 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 10:14:48, James T. Walker wrote: >On November 21, 2005 at 07:52:35, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On November 21, 2005 at 04:28:47, Martin Baumung wrote: >> >>>Hello Uri, >>> >>>>How much time does your program need to find Kxb3 that is the only practical >>>>chance to save the game >>> >>>please enlighten us on how the game can be saved after Kxb3 - especially when >>>using the EGTBs. >> >>Uri did not claim that Kxb3 was a draw, only that it was the best *practical >>chance* to win the game. Big difference. After Kxb3, white has to find a >>very hard move in order to win. Many opponents will not be able to find >>the right move (I almost certainly wouldn't). After all other moves than >>Kxb3, the win is trivial. Even I would be able to win. >> >>Another, less easily noticable problem of EGTBs is the general slowdown >>of the program. It is very hard to guess how many wins a program misses >>because it wastes too much time probing tablebases when a slightly deeper >>search would have found an easy win. >> >>It is just not possible to prove the usefulness of EGTBs in practical >>play with a handful of positions. The only way to measure the usefulness >>is to play a big number of games with and without EGTBs and compare the >>results. So far, the overwhelming evidence points toward the conclusion >>that EGTB use is utterly insignificant in practical play (consider, for >>instance, the difference of 2 Elo points between Fruit 2.2 and Fruit 2.2.1 >>on the CEGT list). >> >>I am not a non-believer in EGTBs, by the way (in fact, I doubt that such >>"non-believers" really exist). The existence of 5-piece and 6-piece >>EGTBs is a tremendous contribution to the body of chess knowledge, >>and arguably one of the most exciting advances in chess theory over the >>last few decades. I am just very disappointed by the immense lack of >>imagination current chess programmers (myself included) display when >>trying to use this new body of knowledge. >> >>Tord > >Hello Tord, >It seems to me that the opposite of what Uri is trying to prove is true here. >Any program with 6 man tablebases will play Kxb3 instantly with no real search >needed. This saves time and plays the desired move to prolong mate to the >ultimate. This I think would be desireable especially vs humans or computers >without the use of tablebases. So how does this prove tabelbases are >counter-productive? >Jim You can see that 5 piece tablebases can be counter productive when you do not have 6 piece tablebases. For similiar reasons 6 piece tablebases may be counter productive when you do not have the 7 piece tablebases. Uri
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.