Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:47:28 04/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1999 at 17:18:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >So KarinsDad (or whatever your real name is :), are you suggesting that such a >rule base be built using the tablebase info, or are you suggesting it be >constructed without access to a tablebase? If the former, what would be the >point? We already have perfect information that fits on hardware worth a couple >of hundred bucks. If the latter, how? > >Dave Dave, What happens when the tablebases get up to 6 pieces and then 7, etc. Will it still fit on a couple of hundred bucks of hardware (and last I heard, some of the 5 piece tablebases were not perfect)? Your second question is like "Why would you climb Mount Everest?". There could be multiple reasons and different reasons for different people. Let's not restrict the problem to tablebases, but let's include Opening books. Would you prefer your program to be GM level at opening play due to calculations or due to an opening book? Which method is more adaptable to theoretical novelties and which method would be more likely to result in a theoretical novelty? If you can find algorithms to solve the simple (relatively speaking) endgame problems, wouldn't that be a step towards solving more complex ones or even making the search/evaluation more sophisticated? The how is a totally different matter. That is why I brought up the question in the first place. If I knew exactly how, I would put this into my program and thumb my nose at all of those fancy programs that are limited to 5 piece tablebases. It is extremely difficult to solve for some cases (I do not deny this), but I also do not throw in the towel and say, "Oh well, we have tablebases, why do we need that?". I would think that since most of us programmers are not GMs and therefore do not have good endgame technique ourselves, that the first place to examine is the current tablebases. It would be easier for us to dissect those with a program than it would be to figure out algorithms on our own. Also, if you save hard disk space by calculating the best moves on the fly and minimizing the tablebases that we do have (as per my earlier posts), then the 6 and 7 piece tablebases will also be smaller and we may find certain ones of those that are more easily solved via a 4 piece or 5 piece table (if we can re-use the algorithms). So, you tell me. Will this take a lot of work similar to the CAPPS (spelling?) project? Yup. Will this help make the endgames of programs stronger in the future? Probably. Do we know exactly how to do it? No. That's what this forum is about: discussing possibilities. KarinsDad :)
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.