Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:41:44 01/29/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2006 at 12:34:55, Mark Rawlings wrote: >On January 29, 2006 at 10:45:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 29, 2006 at 09:52:57, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 2006 at 09:38:56, Majd Al-Ansari wrote: >>> >>>>I have a completely different result. I see quite a big difference and many >>>>"won" games are now won instead of drawn. >>> >>> Please be good enough to present those results >>> here. This would be of great interest. >>> Kurt >>> >>>I have checked out quite a few games >>>>and I will say that EGTB's greately improve endgame play for Rybka, and plug a >>>>lot of holes. >>> >>> This is contrary to long experience with other engines >>> where you can almost see no difference regarding overall >>> score after playing some hundred games. >>> Kurt >>> >>> EGTB are especially important if the other side has them. Not >>>>having them will leak a lot of points. Still there is quite a ways to go for >>>>Rybka when endgames are concerned. It still plays some endings horribly. But >>>>the gaps are getting smaller and smaller and I am very interested to see how >>>>Rybka will be with beta 14 (EG knowledge added). >> >> >>One note: >> >>Playing EGTB vs NoEGTB to see if EGTB helps is probably the wrong way to measure >>the experiment. It is more useful to take a known good program _with_ EGTBs, >>and play your favorite engine against it, with your engine not using 'em, then >>playing again with 'em. If the opponent doesn't have 'em, then your not having >>them might not expose the problem as well as making sure your opponent can >>always win those tricky cases and you now have to rely only on your eval to hang >>on... > > >One thing that makes a comparison difficult when you play a program with and >without tablebases is that there's probably a lot of basic endgame knowledge >that is not programmed into the engine because the author knew he was going to >use tablebases. For example, a program may not have the knowledge to win kbn vs >k without tablebases, but the author could have added the extra code if he >wanted to. I assume that some endgame knowledge was removed from crafty years >ago when tablebases became common. > >Tablebases vs no tablebases would be a good thesis topic for someone! > >Mark Actually, I never removed anything at all. Crafty can still win KBN vs K, or KQ vs KR, or KP vs K (when it is winnable) easily without endgame tables. I always assumed that not everyone would have them...
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.