TalkChess.com

OliverBr wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:02 pm

jp wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:28 am

AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Mon May 26, 2025 12:03 am I'll just chime in at least to say that Syzygy tablebases are worth almost 0 elo now in the top engines.
So that aspect of "outsourc[ing]" is not really relevant.

OliverBr wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 11:13 pm It may be so for "Top" engines, especially with a neural net.
But: If you consider a "normal" engine, everything hand-crafted, own ideas, no neural network, I really do think, that Syzygy tablebases increase the ELO of such an engine.

Andrew, do you just mean that in practice top engines do not score better with TBs than without? Or do you also mean the much bigger claim that top engines are almost tablebase-like in precision in almost all endgames? (Is Lc0 good at endgames without TBs? That was not the case for a long time in the beginning.)

Thank you. He won't answer this, because he didn't even have the respect to answer to mine.

Ras wrote: ↑Thu Jun 19, 2025 4:14 pm Moderation: Removed a post (Charter 2. Are not abusive in nature). Andrew, please keep it civilised.

AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 2:15 pm

jp wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:28 am Andrew, do you just mean that in practice top engines do not score better with TBs than without? Or do you also mean the much bigger claim that top engines are almost tablebase-like in precision in almost all endgames? (Is Lc0 good at endgames without TBs? That was not the case for a long time in the beginning.)

Can refer to this data from the Stockfish team:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... ing-syzygy
I believe the effect has continued to grow. Diminishing the value of the tablebases even further.