Author: James T. Walker
Date: 07:24:23 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 09:53:51, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 15, 1999 at 03:44:30, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Marcus Kaestner on October 14, 1999 at 04:01:40: >>> >>>in chessbits 3 i´ve made a test with the nunn-endgames (10 endgame-positions >>>played with both sides). every program one time with, one time without tb´s >>> >>>after abaout 140 games >>>h7.32 earned +5 elo for the tb-version >>>n7.32 earned +12 elo >>> >>>far the best was crafty 16.13 with +65 elo, topping even the score of hiarcs >>>7.32tb >>> >>>marcus >> >>Take this into account: Some programs may have so much chess knowledge in their >>programs that (the current) TB's have zero effect in the end. This will change >>as soon as the 6-man TB's (and up) will come, no doubt.. > >Definitely. > >>Other programs are developed to 100% rely on TB's and therefore have very few >>(or nothing) chess knowledge inside because there is no need for that. I don't >>know in to what extend this is true for Crafty but I am confident Bob will >>tell you. > >I don't think there are any programs developed to "100% rely on TB's" so that >they wouldn't have any knowledge about the endgame. Whatever search/eval they >have will still be quite good (At least in endings where TBs would affect things >- 5 piece or less), it's just that the TBs provide 100% accuracy. > >>As a result you can not compare the value (elo gain) of TB's in this way as >>it will depend of what is already inside a program (or not). >> >>Rebel knows the most important ones such as (by head): >> >>- KRK > >Yes, this one is easy. > >>- KNNK > >Of course, this is always a draw. > >>- KBNK > >This one's interesting, but not really that difficult. > >>- KPK > >This is pretty easy, too. > >>- KRPKR >>- KNPKN >>- KBPKB >>- KQPKQ > ><lumping these last 4 together> >I'm a bit skeptical about some of these. I'm sure it may play even 90% >accurately in these endings, but I'd be willing to bet it couldn't win 100% of >winnable positions from these endings (especially KRPKR and KQPKQ) against an >opponent with the TBs. > >>I am sure this list is not complete. Of course the bad-bishop situation is >>covered too. Some others are not covered such as KQKR (Hi Jim!) for which >>Rebel will rely on TB's in the future. > >I'm sure Rebel could easily win KQKR without TBs, even against an opponent with >them. It's an easy ending for computers. > >Jeremiah Hello Jeremiah, I wish this were true! See the (Hi Jim) above. I brought this up to Ed last week. I saw Bob's post concerning this ending as trivial since Crafty could do it easily. I decided to test this and gave Crafty a Mate in 28 against Hiarcs 7.32. Crafty with no tablebases mated in 36 moves against Hiarcs with tablebases. When I gave this to Rebel it failed badly. In fact at the 50th move according to Hiarcs it was at "Mate in 28". Right where it started even though at one point it had it down to about mate in 17. This is about the same area where humans were found to have problems with this ending. It seems if they could get past the mate in 15/16 area they could complete the mate. Problem is most could not break this "Barrier". Jim Walker
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.