Graham Banks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:28 am
Have fun.
I'm perfectly happy using tablebases.
Exactly! And who wants to see engines shuffling pieces around for 50+ moves...I'm sure I don't.
Nothing more boring than watching a K+R v K+R ending play out, when you're using a longish time control.
+1 Exactly
I do NOT see them, therefore, do NOT get bored at all, I just simply let them play it out. but there is a function in the GUI to tell it to adjust it to a draw once the score reach 0.00 specially in those R+K vs R+K, so the EGTB is not needed. But there is a huge difference in witnessing EGTB play perfect endgames, which is NOT the purpose of testing engines, and letting engines that has better endgame knowledge than other show us why they are better, just like Humans are NOT allowed to used a Laptop in the candidate with 6-pieces EGTB.
Note: Note engine should have more endgame imbedded in their algorithm, where we do NOT have to use EGTB larger than 4-5 Pieces, to see which engines is more complete. Plus most engines like Komodo Dragon and Stockfish already play endgames up to 98% accurate without using Endgame EGTB. Ask yourself this simple question wen you are testing Eng vs Eng, what are you trying to determine anyway ? And for the same reason, why do you need opening that are longer than 6 to 8 moves deep, Might as well use an opening book up to 40 moves deep and a 8-pieces EGBT and all that the engines has to evaluate on their own will be no more than 20 moves
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:28 am
Have fun.
I'm perfectly happy using tablebases.
Exactly! And who wants to see engines shuffling pieces around for 50+ moves...I'm sure I don't.
Nothing more boring than watching a K+R v K+R ending play out, when you're using a longish time control.
+1 Exactly
I do NOT see them, therefore, do NOT get bored at all, I just simply let them play it out. but there is a function in the GUI to tell it to adjust it to a draw once the score reach 0.00 specially in those R+K vs R+K, so the EGTB is not needed. But there is a huge difference in witnessing EGTB play perfect endgames, which is NOT the purpose of testing engines, and letting engines that has better endgame knowledge than other show us why they are better, just like Humans are NOT allowed to use a Laptop in the candidate with 6-pieces EGTB.
Note: Engine should have more endgame imbedded in their algorithm, where we do NOT have to use EGTB larger than 4-5 Pieces, to see which engines is more complete. Plus most engines like Komodo Dragon and Stockfish already play endgames up to 98% accurate without using Endgame EGTB. Ask yourself this simple question wen you are testing Eng vs Eng, what are you trying to determine anyway ? And for the same reason, why do you need opening that are longer than 6 to 8 moves deep, Might as well use an opening book up to 40 moves deep and a 8-pieces EGBT and all that the engines has to evaluate on their own will be no more than 20 moves
If these engines, Berserk, Koivisto, Slowches, Rubichess, Igel, Rofchade and Ethereal just to give you a few that I already tested them playing the Black side reach this position playing Black against Komodo Dragon playing the White pieces, and all those engines use the 8-pieces EGTB and they all reach a draw, what would be your conclusion. To me it is defeating the purpose of testing engines, and to see which engines has more chess knowledge in general, which of course include endgame knowledge.
