Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 07:44:12 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 10:27:42, Mike Hood wrote: >Uri, thanks for your one-halfply backup from my position. I think the "problem" >here is that we're dealing with extreme positions. In cases where the forced >mate is very long (>50) and there is only one correct move, an engine might not >find it if it is a move not obvious to typical computer algorithms. My position >was an extreme position that shows the usefulness of EGTB's. Your backed up >position was an extreme position that shows the potential harm of EGTB's. But >let's be honest... how often do positions like these occur in practical play? This depends on your definition of "positions like these". If you mean positions where the program avoids a long and complicated tablebase mate with lots of opportunities for the opponent to choose the wrong move, and chooses an obviously lost line with a bigger number of pieces instead: These positions occur rather frequently in practical play. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I am pretty sure they will happen even more frequently when 6 man tablebases become common. Tord
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.