I showed that building a 3-mover EPD opening book from this endgame, unbalanced, borderline, tricky position
[D]1nn1k1n1/4p3/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
gives an endgame test suite very sensitive on TBs, I used 6-men Syzygy from SSD. I got +76 ELO points SF Syzygy against SF NO TB difference from this endgame suite. I decided to test SF Syzygy master vs SF Natural TB, as Marco Costalba claimed he got a whopping 15 ELO points better with NTB from regular openings (2moves_v1. epd), which is quite hard to believe. The total contribution of TBs from regular openings is about that magnitude.
The tricky endgame openings are here (1000+ of them):
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=009 ... 2378736001
At 15''+ 0.15'' time control, the result in favor of Master vs Natural TB was so skewed, that I interrupted the match as no contest:
Code: Select all
Games Completed = 400 of 1000 (Avg game length = 38.117 sec) Settings = RR/32MB/15000ms+150ms/M 1000000cp for 1000 moves, D 200000 moves/EPD:C:\LittleBlitzer\Disbalance2.epd(1079) Time = 1935 sec elapsed, 2903 sec remaining 1. Stockfish 020917 64 BMI2 224.0/400 93-45-262 (L: m=45 t=0 i=0 a=0) (D: r=101 i=102 f=52 s=7 a=0) (tpm=341.2 d=22.36 nps=1678295) 2. Stockfish 020917 64 BMI2 NTB 176.0/400 45-93-262 (L: m=92 t=1 i=0 a=0) (D: r=101 i=102 f=52 s=7 a=0) (tpm=373.1 d=28.03 nps=1717616)
I used LittleBlitzer to have relevant stats. Next I will test SF Natural vs SF NO TB, to see if Natural gives any benefit at all at this time control.