Modern computers analyze far enough ahead conventionally to handle the elementary endgames without needing tablebases (i.e. Some computers play better overall if their memory is devoted instead to the ordinary search and evaluation function. This is a mere fraction of the 7.05 GB that the Nalimov tablebases require.

Shredderbases, for example, used by the Shredder program, compress all three, four and five piece bases into 157 MB. It is estimated that seven-piece tablebases will require between 50 and 200 TB of storage space. The six-piece endings require approximately 1.2 TB. The Nalimov tablebases, which use advanced compression techniques, require 7.05 GB of hard disk space for all five-piece endings. The adverse effect could be a premature resignation, or an inferior line of play that loses with less resistance than a play without tablebase might offer.ДЄnother drawback is that tablebases require a lot of memory to store the many thousands of positions. In addition to ignoring the fifty-move rule, a computer in a difficult position might avoid the losing side of a tablebase ending even if the opponent cannot practically win without himself knowing the tablebase. However, some computer chess experts have observed practical drawbacks. Sometimes even this data is compressed and the bitbase reveals only whether a position is won or not, making no difference between a lost and a drawn game.

For the latter purpose, some programs use 'bitbases' which give the game-theoretical value of positions without the number of moves until conversion or mate - that is, they only reveal whether the position is won, lost or draw. Not only can computers play perfectly within an endgame, but they can simplify to a winning tablebase position from a more complicated endgame. The knowledge contained in tablebases affords the computer a tremendous advantage in the endgame.

Shredder endgame tablebase