Talk:Endgame tablebase

Currently assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis. I'd agree with this - although not promoted to FA, it seems all concerns were addressed, but people got bored with it after it was stayed as an FAC for six weeks. youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, I think the article largely satisfies the criteria, there are however a few points where the article could be improved. Here is what peerreviewer had to say: (plus one comment from myself). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Are the sections "play with God" and "nomenclature" really necessary? Maybe they could be incorporated in some other section.Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the material in those sections is OK. If Thompson had not used the "play chess with God" phrase, I'd rather call it an oracle or something. But I think it is OK as is. I think the nomenclature section is important to distinguish it from a simple database of endgames. But both of these sections are only one relatively short paragraph, so perhaps they could be incorporated into the main body. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been struggling with where to put these sections since I wrote them. I think the nomenclature section should be relegated to the "notes" or "references" section - it is not really important, but I think I need to justify why we prefer one term over other terms that have been used.

"Play chess with God" strikes me as a fine concluding section, the way I would conclude an essay on the topic. I prefer to leave it that way, but I could defend moving it to virtually any other section. A particularly bold idea would make it a "hook" in the lead section, fleshing out the significance of "perfect play" as introduced in the lead. Shalom ^Hello 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would not make sense to put Nomenclature in Notes or References. I think it might be best to make Nomenclature the first section, to indicate to the reader that an endgame tablebase is not simply a database of endgames. It might could be called something else such as Terminology. Bubba73 (talk), 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, because I basically have one problem with most sentences:

• the caption for the picture in the lead seems too long. Actually, most captions are too long in the article. If these captions are really adding value, they ought to be incorporated in the text.
• some words in British, others in American (however I do not see that as being really important)
• the sentence "Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backwards from a checkmated position" sounds obviously wrong, as tablebases also work backward from a stalemate position or from a drawn position.
• the sentence "Tablebases have solved chess for every position with six pieces or fewer" may precise that the "six pieces" include the Kings (may sound obvious to most, but not to me).
• in the sentence "The results of the solution have profoundly advanced the chess community's understanding of endgame theory", what solution are we talking about ? what is endgame theory ? (there is no link)
• in the sentence "Positions which humans had analyzed as draws were proven to be decided", what do you mean by "decided" ? (not defined anywhere). To me, a "draw" is a decision.
• the sentence "Tablebases have enhanced competitive play" sounds like an opinion. Any reference ?
• the sentence "They provide a powerful analytical tool, enabling students of chess to discover its deepest secrets", I don't know, somehow it just does not sound "encyclopedic", more something of a commercial add for a tablebase engine
• in the sentence "In principle, it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance" I could point out that maybe we should explain/define what a game with random chance is, but that seems too nitty-gritty. Probably even the average Joe will know that.
• in the sentence "Strong solutions are known for some simple games", why do you qualify the solution as "strong" ? What is a "strong solution" ?
• in the "Background" section, second paragraph, maybe we should mention the horizon effect to explain software's weaknesses in endgames ?
• all references should be wikified, e.g. "(Levy & Newborn 1991:25-38)" should be replaced by something like [63] (after the punctuation! ;-))
• it would be cool to explain more in details the differences between Thompson tables, Nalimov tables, etc.
• the sentence "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to a simpler endgame" should be rephrased as something like "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to an endgame whose solution is known". Indeed, sometimes the computer goes to a much more complicated endgme (e.g. sacrificing pieces without reasons), just because it knows the solution of that last one.
• in the section "Step 1: Generating all possible positions" it should be made immediately clear that 40,000 is an approximation.
• the paragraph on the conflict between pawns and symmetry is very interesting, and should be referenced.
• in the section "Step 3: Verification", maybe we should point out that it is not a verification of thruth, but only of self-consistency. I mean, the whole tablebase could be completely wrong and still self-consistent, and then the verification program would not detect the errors, right ?
• the sentence "(However, castling is allowed by convention in composed problems and studies.)" should contain links to "composed problems" and to "studies".
• the caption for the picture in the section "Using a priori information" is long and does not really bring information relevant for the subject of "a priori information"
• in the section "Correspondence chess", I do not immediately see the link between the second paragraph and the title of the section. I mean, the 50-moves rule is applicable even in over-the-board games, in analysis session, in adjourned games, in computer chess, etc. So why should we mention it in the "Correspondence" section ?
• the section "Endgame theory" is too long if the main article is considered to be "Endgame#Effect of tablebases on endgame theory". I do not see any need to double the information in each article, so maybe we should put a very short section in one of the articles, and a very expanded one in the other.
• there is a dead link to "Harold van der Heijden"
• what is the purpose of the section "Play chess with God" ? It sounds trivia to me, and too short to be a section on its own

All in all, this article is really great and has a lot of content and a good number of refereces, but I feel there is some "wikifying" to be done. Also, the lead seems fine for anyone who ALREADY knows the subject, but I think a newcomer would be confused by some sentences. SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should be consistent between American/British spelling
• I thought that retrograde analysis worked back only from won positions,since everything not reaching a won position is a drawn position. But someone more familiar with it than I am should see what is correct.

Thanks for explaining that to me! If that is the case, then of course my mistake. Still, maybe we should explain this mechanism in the article. Also, how does it come with the thing that some 5 pieces vs 1 pieces are not evaluated (I have seen that in the Talk page of the article) because they are assumed to be always won ? SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that they have profoundly affected endgame theory, since only a few endgame evaluations were changed, and they were mostly rare ones or ones that take more than 50 moves.
• I changed "decided" to "decisive" and added "some". Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, and thanks for your interest in my comments. That gave me faith to add more! (see hereupon) SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your points are good points. I think those changes could be made without objection, except that I thought that the retrograde analysis for the tablebases started with a checkmate or conversion to a known won position, not any drawn positions. Bubba73 (talk), 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SyG, those are a lot of good points, and it will take me some time to fix most of them. I'll respond quickly to one point: tablebases actually do not analyze backward from drawn positions. They only analyze won positions, and anything that's not a win is, by default, a draw. I mention this in the section on "generating tablebases", and I believe it is mentioned in at least two of the articles used as references (one each by Haworth and Krabbe). Thank you for the feedback. Shalom ^Hello 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Given that:

• the minimum three-weeks period for review is over,
• no one has made any comment for the review since 10 August 2007,
• no one has made an edit to the endgame tablebase article since 9 August 2007,
• the article has not garnered enough support for A-class, and significant points have been raised,

I shall close this review and grade the article as GA-class. The article seems close to A-class, as long as the points underlined hereupon are discussed/addressed. Of course, if you do not agree with my conclusion, I am always open to discussion. SyG 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)