Author: Mark Rawlings
Date: 19:01:17 01/14/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2006 at 17:09:31, GuyHaworth wrote: > >Given maxDTC = 282 for KQNNKQN, as Marc says: > > all we know for sure is that maxDTM >= 282 > >Nothing can be said about moves-to-conversion within a DTM-minimaxing line. It >may be that the winner has to concede more in DTC terms than the loser in order >to min(imax) DTM, or it could be the other way round. > >For example, in ICGA_Journal v23.1 (2000), I reported the end of a KRNKNN line >where White is playing SM-C- (minimising DTM and then DTC on each move) and >Black is playing SM+C+ (maximising DTM and then DTC). The conversion happened >to occur on move 248 (compared to move 243 in any SC-/SC+ line) and no doubt, if >other equi-optimal moves had been selected, it would have happened on other >moves. > >Thus, within DTM-minimaxing lines from the maxDTM position (which may or may not >be a maxDTM position, but let's assume it is here), we would see the conversion >happening after a variety of numbers of moves - and quite possibly, some would >be greater than 282 and some less. > >Of course, if White prioritises DTM and Black prioritises DTC, it is clear what >will happen. Mate will happen on or before the nominal DTM, and conversion will >happen on or after the nominal DTC. > > >Good to hear things are ticking over on 7-man: nice work, Marc. > >g What is the main benefit of computing maxDTC tablebases? Are they faster/easier to calculate than maxDTM tablebases? Or are they more useful, since you could use them with the 50-move rule? Thanks, Mark
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.