user11609: I watched some Komodo endgame play and what he is capable of is just horrible. From nice advantage with pawn up and activity he gives up two pawns ending in some miracle fortress position. Who can blame him when he knows everything about the endgame (7 man position for example using 6man tablebase) in a few seconds, knowing it is 0.00 everywhere, but still, is this the best chess engines can do with technical endgames? I see no imagination in his endgame play, no problem creation for oponent, just random moves not making his position worse in theoretic terms. Clearly he would lose many points playing this way with any human being incapable of precise play. Playing another perfect oposition they don't lose anything but still not sure I like such a design.
As far as I understnad engines, contempt has nothing to do with this problem, is there another setting that can help here?
Edit: example position
2k5/7R/r5p1/3K4/3P4/7P/8/8 b - - 0 1

1...g5 2.Ke4 Kd8 3.Ke5 Ra3 4.Rh6 Ke7 5.Rh8 Re3+ 6.Kd5 Kf6 7.Kc5 Kg7 8.Rh5 Kg6 9.Rh8 Kg7 10.Rb8 Rxh3 11.Rb2 g4 12.Rg2 g3 13.d5 Kf6 14.d6 Ke6 15.d7 *


user924: The problem with an engine playing a drawn position with tablebases is that it has no concept of making life difficult for the opponent. All their moves are perfect in the sense that they don't turn a drawing position into a losing one -- not losing is guaranteed. But it has no concept of trying to win, and no way to decide between several moves that all lead to yet another drawn position, because in theory there is no difference.
If you turn off the tablebases, you get the normal engine play. It won't be perfect, but still usually much better than humans, and it uses an evaluation function that rewards material advantage, passed pawns, active pieces, and so on. That's probably what you want.

user825: I think @RemocoGerlich is correct, and I'm here to add a real-life example. The point is that a chess engine would like to transpose a position into a known endgame.
There is also a technical explanation from Syzygy's author in the reference (nobody understands tablebase better than him!).

Reference: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62837

Although black easily wins in the following position, Stockfish with 6-piece Syzygy would give the move:

1...Qe3+ 2.Kd5 Qxd3+



The reported moves appear to be random and absurd, but they're correct
Stockfish would try to transpose to a known tablebase endgame as quickly as possible. While it does that, it'd play non-human moves
If you turn tablebase off, Stockfish would do something else such as trying to checkmate the White king with the queen. Stockfish would play 1...Qc5 without tablebase, and that's also how a human would do.


11609: <p>I watched some Komodo endgame play and what he is capable of is just horrible. From nice advantage with pawn up and activity he gives up two pawns ending in some miracle fortress position. Who can blame him when he knows everything about the endgame (7 man position for example using 6man tablebase) in a few seconds, knowing it is 0.00 everywhere, but still, is this the best chess engines can do with technical endgames? I see no imagination in his endgame play, no problem creation for oponent, just random moves not making his position worse in theoretic terms. Clearly he would lose many points playing this way with any human being incapable of precise play. Playing another perfect oposition they don't lose anything but still not sure I like such a design.</p>

<p>As far as I understnad engines, contempt has nothing to do with this problem, is there another setting that can help here?</p>

<p>Edit: example position</p>

<pre><code>2k5/7R/r5p1/3K4/3P4/7P/8/8 b - - 0 1

1...g5 2.Ke4 Kd8 3.Ke5 Ra3 4.Rh6 Ke7 5.Rh8 Re3+ 6.Kd5 Kf6 7.Kc5 Kg7 8.Rh5 Kg6 9.Rh8 Kg7 10.Rb8 Rxh3 11.Rb2 g4 12.Rg2 g3 13.d5 Kf6 14.d6 Ke6 15.d7 *
</code></pre>
 924: <p>The problem with an engine playing a drawn position with tablebases is that it has no concept of making life difficult for the opponent. All their moves are perfect in the sense that they don't turn a drawing position into a losing one -- not losing is guaranteed. But it has no concept of trying to win, and no way to decide between several moves that all lead to yet another drawn position, because in theory there <em>is</em> no difference.</p>

<p>If you turn off the tablebases, you get the normal engine play. It won't be <em>perfect</em>, but still usually much better than humans, and it uses an evaluation function that rewards material advantage, passed pawns, active pieces, and so on. That's probably what you want.</p>
 825: <p>I think @RemocoGerlich is correct, and I'm here to add a real-life example. The point is that a chess engine would like to transpose a position into a known endgame.</p>

<p>There is also a technical explanation from Syzygy's author in the reference (nobody understands tablebase better than him!).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Reference: <a href="http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62837">http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62837</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Although black easily wins in the following position, Stockfish with 6-piece Syzygy would give the move:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>1...Qe3+ 2.Kd5 Qxd3+</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ii1Oc.png"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ii1Oc.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<ul>
<li>The reported moves appear to be random and absurd, but they're correct</li>
<li>Stockfish would try to transpose to a known tablebase endgame as quickly as possible. While it does that, it'd play non-human moves</li>
<li>If you turn tablebase off, Stockfish would do something else such as trying to checkmate the White king with the queen. Stockfish would play 1...Qc5 without tablebase, and that's also how a human would do.</li>
</ul>
