Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 07:28:25 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 09:00:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > Then this means the EGTB will prefer a mate in 51 without pawns moves or captures to a mate in 52 with a pawn move or capture before the 50 move rule kicks in. It will draw winning positions. Undesirable and unnecessary. Fortunately rare. > > > >>> >>>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.