Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:46:08 12/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2005 at 14:33:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 08, 2005 at 14:14:46, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 08, 2005 at 04:03:26, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 2005 at 03:50:37, Jouni Uski wrote: >>> >>>>3 Fruit 2.2 2768 16 16 1385 67.8 % 2638 27.8 % >>>>4 Fruit 2.2.1 2764 15 15 1414 59.1 % 2700 34.5 % >>>> >>>>EGTBs weaken engines play? >>>> >>>>Jouni >>> >>>Hi Jouni, >>> >>>this is frm the Blitz rating list. In the 40/40 list the have the same rating >>>according to BayesELO. >>> >>>There is another example: compare Loop List 600 EGTB and Loop List 600 noEGTB. >>>Of course more games needed here. >> >>Only 16 Elo difference (within experimental uncertainty). I think it is safe to >>say that EGTB files (in general) do not increase strength of play. The cost of >>a probe seems to be about equal to the value of the knowledge gained. > > >I do not believe in it. > >The cost of a probe is expensive if you probe every node but you do not have to >probe every node and you can probe only when the remaining depth is high enough. > >Maybe probing when the remaining depth is high enough cause hash problems and >this may be a reason for not increasing strength but I do not believe that the >problem is generally speed. > >knowledge in general can be productive and the only question is how much. >If the advantage is very small then it is very hard to prove it by results of >games but it does not mean that there is no advantage. It is not about belief. It is about carefully measured tests. I have seen perhaps a dozen of them and all of them come to the same conclusion. You put your finger on something important: I think some engines probe too much.
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.