Originally posted by Chipotle If you are using Fritz for analysis, you know you are into the tablebase when the analysis engine says something like #4 (mate in 4moves).
Well, not necessarily, because Fritz could find a mate in 4 in an ordinary position without using a tablebase (just by calculating all the possible moves out by normal means).
But yeah, once you're in the tablebase you have perfect information, as if it were tic-tac-toe. So using a tablebase would in a sense be a worse form of cheating than using an engine (which only gives you very good, but not perfect moves).
Originally posted by incandenza Well, not necessarily, because Fritz could find a mate in 4 in an ordinary position without using a tablebase (just by calculating all the possible moves out by normal means).
But yeah, once you're in the tablebase you have perfect information, as if it were tic-tac-toe. So using a tablebase would in a sense be a worse form of cheating than using an engine (which only gives you very good, but not perfect moves).
True, an engine can calculate a forced mate, but, you are in a tablebase situation because the engine has calculated a 4 move forced mate. That's how TBs are created. The reason programs use them is to avoid the calculation time required during analysis.
Originally posted by Chipotle True, an engine can calculate a forced mate, but, you are in a tablebase situation because the engine has calculated a 4 move forced mate. That's how TBs are created. The reason programs use them is to avoid the calculation time required during analysis.
But just because Fritz says "#4" does not mean it's using a tablebase. The tablebases only apply when there are a certain number of pieces left on the board, usually 6 or less. If Fritz says #4 and you have more than 6 pieces on the board, it did not use a tablebase.
(edit: to be precise, it could be using tablebases for part of the calculation, e.g. if you start with 7 pieces but trades reduce it down to where the tablebases apply. But my point is, there are lots of situations where Fritz will find forced mates that don't have anything to do with tablebases at all.)
Also, I don't think a standard Fritz installation has tablebases for more than 4 pieces or so. The 5 piece tablebases take up 7 gigs, and the 6 piece ones 1.2 terabytes, according to that Wikipedia page.
Here's a relevant (and somewhat scary) claim made in the user manual for the commercial version of Shredder 11 (for which the installation of the tablebases is optional). Mate in 4 is nothing...
"The currently available tablebases contain every possible position in every relevant four and five piece endgames. Together with each position there is information on whether it is a win, loss or draw. If a position is a win or a loss there is information on the maximum number of moves required up to mate. A chess playing program using the Nalimov tablebases will end many games with truly spectacular mate announcements. Shredder will often confront you with a "mate in 45 moves", even when there are many more pieces on the board. This is because the program has found a line in which it can trade down to five pieces and then get a position which is recorded in the tablebases as a forced win."
Originally posted by DeepGreene Here's a relevant (and somewhat scary) claim made in the user manual for the commercial version of Shredder 11 (for which the installation of the tablebases is optional). Mate in 4 is nothing...
"The currently available tablebases contain every possible position in every relevant four and five piece endgames. Together with each position there is inf ...[text shortened]... o five pieces and then get a position which is recorded in the tablebases as a forced win."
I've seen mate in 68 (and other numbers in that range) using Fritz
I agree that using a Chess-engine to play another person is cheating.
Isn't using a database almost similar to using a chess-engine? Whats the difference? If you are going to make your moves based on a data-base, what is the difference from using a chess-engine?
I am playing chess after a long time so if someone would enlighten me, I would be grateful.
Originally posted by Mark Adkins ...the Shredder online opening database is perfectly usable under the RHP service agreement...
I've had a question about the Shredder opening database for quite some time now.
Which of the "books," as they are called, are we allowed to use? For example, Shredder's "Huge Book" database is the same as any database I've ever seen, from RHP to Gameknot, etc. But Shredder's "Shredder 9 Book" database and "Shredder 10 Book" database have a feature where every opening move is given a value rating (from A [great move] to F [poor move]) by Shredder itself. Is this not engine use?
Any comments and/or suggestions would be appreciated.
Originally posted by wittywonka by Shredder itself. Is this not engine use?
I think an important aspect is whether the analysis is done prior to a game starting or not. e.g. I could acceptably create an opening book based on engine analysis and use it in future RHP games. But I can't generate new analysis based on a game in progress.
Originally posted by JulyDerek Isn't using a database almost similar to using a chess-engine? Whats the difference?
not even close. the difference is database games are played by humans, not by an engine, and thus have the normal amount of inaccuracies and even huge blunders. when a game between humans ends 1-0 or 0-1, there is always at least one losing move. a good database is pruned to contain less mistakes and low quality games, but it still has them.
Originally posted by Varenka I agree that this is often the case, but there is nothing to stop someone using a database with engine games.
except that it's forbidden in the TOS. 🙂
(b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
Originally posted by wormwood except that it's forbidden in the TOS. 🙂
(b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between [b]human players, and other pre-existing research materials.[/b]
Ok, so if I refer to the engine games, not as "games" but as analysis lines, then can't I use them as "pre-existing research material"?
Or alternatively...
- I complete a game in RHP
- I then analyse the game with an engine and note improvements
- the next time I play the same opening in RHP, I use the improvements
Originally posted by Varenka Ok, so if I refer to the engine games, not as "games" but as analysis lines, then can't I use them as "pre-existing research material"?
Or alternatively...
- I complete a game in RHP
- I then analyse the game with an engine and note improvements
- the next time I play the same opening in RHP, I use the improvements
Ok or not?
and eventually you will analyze the old game in the same time with playing the new game... 🙂
Originally posted by Varenka Ok, so if I refer to the engine games, not as "games" but as analysis lines, then can't I use them as "pre-existing research material"?
Or alternatively...
- I complete a game in RHP
- I then analyse the game with an engine and note improvements
- the next time I play the same opening in RHP, I use the improvements
Ok or not?
you can prepare openings and find improvements to old games with an engine, as long as it doesn't concern a game in progress. the difference between that and following a complete engine game from a db, is that the db game will yield a high engine matchup rate, while improvements will only affect a couple of moves at best.
although there might be some conceptual gray area there, it has been said that following an engine game from a human game database will not be a sufficient excuse.
data bases
08 Nov '07 03:48
Back to Top