Closed ornicar closed 8 years ago
Maybe this can be reconsidered? Especially for 5-man positions since Lila has DTM, which is obviously much better than any engine. It seems like a pretty clear waste of resources and as pointed out in the comment above, sometimes analysis mistakes can happen like having an optimal move marked as a blunder. Maybe if in the future hash is reused between positions it makes sense to let the engines analyze but still, the evaluations presented to the client can be replaced with the DTM scores?
The following are examples where the computer analysis goes wrong, which would not occur with tablebases. I hope this helps to assess the priority of using tablebases.
Moves wrongly marked as blunder
Example 1.1
The computer analysis says 4. Ne4 is a blunder. But 4. Ne4 is an optimal move according to the tablebase, so not a blunder.
Example 1.2
The computer analysis says 54. Bd3+ is a blunder for losing the forced checkmate. But according to the tablebase, forced checkmate is not lost.
Consecutively the computer analysis marks 54... Kc1 as a blunder. But this move is not a blunder, the checkmate is already forced before the move.
Blunders which are not marked as blunders
Example 2.1
White is winning according to the tablebases after 3... Ng6. But not anymore after 4. Kb6 for the fifty-move rule. Therefore the computer analysis should say that 4. Kb6 is a blunder.
Example 2.2
White is winning according to the tablebases after 3... Nf7. But after 4. Bd1 White has no forced mate anymore. Therefore the computer analysis should say that 4. Bd1 is a blunder not inaccuracy.