Talk:Endgame tablebase

Questionable Attribution in Background

In context, the following paragraph seems to have an error:

"In 1970, Thomas Ströhlein published a doctoral thesis[11][12] with analysis of the following classes of endgame: KQK, KRK, KPK, KQKR, KRKB, and KRKN.[13] In 1977 Thompson's KQKR database was used in a match versus Grandmaster Walter Browne." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwalton125 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction: "generated by retrograde analysis" vs "Step 1: Generating all possible positions"

There is a contradiction between that statement from the introduction,

"Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backward from a checkmated position."

and "Step 1: Generating all possible positions" which considers positions that are obviously not checkmated positions (which require the enemy K to be on the border). So I wonder which one is right. I do think that retrograde analysis should be the way to go. Then, for many standard "mates" [K+Q, K+R, ...], one can restrict the search to the case where the opponent king is on the border -- i.e., only 4, not 10 squares, and clearly much less positions of the mating material: one of the pieces must threaten the king; and if it is next to it, it must be protected by the own king or another piece. — MFH:Talk 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the searching principle(s) may be somewhat unclear in the article, I do not immediately agree that the ending positions can really be restricted to checkmated positions. A complete retrograde search would need to include stalemate positions, but also... any position that can be a repetition of an earlier position.Elias (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

ÑÑ The most basic utility of endgame tablebases doesn't seem to be treated anywhere. If some piece is a statistical traitor, wouldn't that be something that human players should try to figure out? - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.50.13 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Metrics are outdated

DTZ metric is more popular than DTC and DTM and should be mentioned in bold. Can anyone think of a simple position in which the difference between all 3 metrics is highlighted? Jack234567 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added some information about DTZ but we still need a better diagram. Jack234567 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Endgame tablebase

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 listing contains significant unctied material, failing GA criterion 2b); it may also need to be updated, as a message on the talk page calls attention to "outdated metrics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a bunch of edits few months ago which I believe largely solves the outdated problem. I think most of uncited material could just be removed, as it's pretty unnecessary. Jack234567 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll go through this paragraph by paragraph and see what's trivial to do. Remsense留 01:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say there's also a lot of WP:FANCRUFT for a non-general audience that makes it difficult to know how to begin reorganizing the article. Remsense留 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delist: there is still a lot of uncited material. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.