Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:00:33 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 04:45:07, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On August 03, 1999 at 04:32:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On August 02, 1999 at 22:47:14, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >> >>>Your post is a little ambiguous. Are you saying Nalimov EGTB is a shortest mate >>>EGTB for all the 5 man endings? How would the tables be generated? >>> >>>I would be surprised if all the endings covered by the Nalimov EGTB are of the >>>shortest mate variety. I would also be disappointed for the reason indicated. >>>Some endings (other than KQKR which a computer program can win in about 34 >>>moves) would be "impossible" to win using such a TB due to the 50 move rule. >> >>I would be suprised if the Nalimov tables are *not* distance to mate. The only >>publicly available distance to conversion tables that I know of are the Thompson >>tables. > >Shortest mate EGTB also has the defect of possibly concluding that an ending is >drawn due to the 50 move when it is actually winning. By the way, I think this >issue can be cleared up by noting that "distance to mate" is not necessarily the >same as "shortest mate". first, 50 move draw is _not_ included. How could it be? Because you have _no_ idea what position you will enter the database at... and distance to mate _is_ "shortest distance to mate" absolutely... >> >>And yes, the tables do suffer from the possible problem that you mentioned, >>although this should be extremely rare in practice. >> >>bruce
This page took 0.01 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.