So what about it? How exactly it works?
And also what is the difference between the different implementations in Chessbase GUI and in Aquarium GUI? If you know about the second question of course....
i'm disappointed because it seems that Aquarium 3 und Deep Aquarium 3 are different GUIs. I bought Aquarium 3 from Convekta and Deep Rybka from Chessbase.
Is ist possible to use the Deep Rybka Engine in the Auarium 3 GUI with the same functionality as I had in the Deep Auarium Gui - or what is the difference.
There was no information about that it could be a problem/difference and i must have the Deep Aquarium GUI: Download size is different: 44 MB (A 3) 47 MB (DA 3).
> Download size is different: 44 MB (A 3) 47 MB (DA 3).
That's because of the extra engines (multiprocessor versions).
in the download mail there is no fast-link for the mega-cap-file.
After you installed Rybka 3 Aquarium, you can also download additional Aquarium components:
MegaCAP - an analysis tree with 44 000 000 evaluations of different engines (not only Rybka)."
Downloading over the ChessOK- Downloader is very slow.
ChessOK Downloader (11kb) over http ca. 200kb.
Could give anyone for me as a registered user the fast link-adresse.
I installed Rybka 3, Rybka 3 Human and Rybka 3 Dynamic.
When under Fritz GUI I want to create a tournament and want to select a Rybka 3, the 3 of them are named Rybka 3 without extension so I dont know which one is which and often select the wrong engine. E.G. select Rybka Human instead of Rybka 3 (Default)
How can I change that ?
thanks for your help
>>Is there a simple way to test whether Rybka is using tablebases correctly?
Sure. Just give her a simple king and pawn endgame and you'll know very quickly <<
This sounds like a threat :D
No, but there is something similar in the Rybka 3 UCI extensions. Details will be available shortly.
how much money do you charge for implemeting this in a private version?
well the same question I'll have to ask convekta..
What does it makes?
Yes, slightly. I believe that tablebases improve the quality of endgame play by an Elo point or so. This is only an opinion, as we don't have a good way to measure improvements of this type of magnitude.
Let me propose a good way to measure the cost of not having tablebases. Simply stop using them in all of the tournaments you participate in! Sooner or later you will realize that you are drawing a lot of games unnecessarily. Other people will help you in this process by asking probing questions like "what the !@#$% were you thinking?"! :-D ). After a while you will be able to identify the percentage of games you are drawing, rather than winning, by not having tablebases and will realize the lack of tablebase support is costing a lot more than an Elo point or so. The educational value alone will be of far greater value than the lonely Elo point you may or may not be forgoing. What do you say?
I think you are probably right. But unfortunately it does not appear that there is any simple way to obtain and load the 3-4-5 man TBs into Rybka.
(At one point, there was discussion of including these TBs with Rybka 3.0 but I guess that was dropped.)
I was not able to do it with version 2.3.2.a because Shredderbases (the only TBs I had) don't work with Rybka.
May I ask how you have implemented it 3-4-5 man TBs in Rybka.
>I got a folder with 35.tbs files in it, total size 286 KBs. Is that all there is?
No, those are only the TableBaseStats files.
we'll eventually standardize this as a part of UCI. Users clicking on engine parameters to control this behavior is really ugly, especially with Nalimov parameters appearing elsewhere in the interface. Just be patient, these things take time ..
> Let me propose a good way to measure the cost of not having tablebases. Simply stop using them in all of the tournaments you participate in! Sooner or later you will realize that you are drawing a lot of games unnecessarily. Other people will help you in this process by asking probing questions like "what the !@#$% were you thinking?"! ). After a while you will be able to identify the percentage of games you are drawing, rather than winning, by not having tablebases and will realize the lack of tablebase support is costing a lot more than an Elo point or so. The educational value alone will be of far greater value than the lonely Elo point you may or may not be forgoing. What do you say?
Ok, but since we are scientists, we have to perform a controlled experiment. For the comparison, we play in tournaments with tablebases but announce that we are playing without them, and count the same complaints :)
My belief is that just having them accessed by the GUI is worth a lot more than 1 Elo (not only for the perfect play but also for the near instantaneous response). Having them available during the search should be an additional gain, even if Rybka's use of tablebases is less effective than some other engines'.
It's certainly not worth your trouble, but if you went through your database of games, there would be some percentage of games that reached 6-pieces, that were resolved in a non-optimal manner (I even remember a freestyle game in this category that you were kibitzing :-) ). I've never done anything scientific in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if as many as 2% of the game that reached 6-pieces were not resolved as they should have been.
nothing you write contradicts the theory that tablebases are worth 1 Elo point.
Maybe you underestimate 1 Elo point. 1 Elo point is a winning percentage of 50.2%, or roughly one extra half-point every 250 games. If you watch 750 games total, 3 will be decided by lack of tablebases, and those 3 half-points might really hurt.
Of that 35%+ that reaches 6-man, it is hard to say definitively how many slip 0.5 as a result of tablebases and how many do not, but I can tell you from my own research about 3% of 6-man games are wrongly decided at the moment they reach 6-man. So, 35% x 3% = ~1% of Playchess games. So it is a 1-in-100 event on Playchess. What is the practical impact then? More like 3-4 ELO?
Bear in mind in these wrongly-decided games it may be that 0, 1 or 2 players have the appropriate tablebases. (Yes, even two. Disconnects and other one-off stuff can happen resulting in an unpredictable outcome.)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill