Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:16:16 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 09:59:13, Victor Fernandez wrote: > >I disagree of their statement. Hiarcs 8 have been able to fail >in their evaluation of "one" position (another "top" programs fails >in "more than one" and in "all their games"). Hiarcs8, Shredder6 and >Century4 they have the best posicional evaluator. >A program is worth what is worth its positional evaluator and >its quantity of chess knowledge. Of anything it serves >the tactical search if the program doesn't understand that ago >and it evaluates incorrectly the last position. >Richard's Lang programs had the best posicional evaluator in your >moment, and had more than enough chess knowledge, >for that reason it won, I believe, 10 world championships (feat >that, by the way, it has not achieved, neither I believe that it >achieves, any other program.) No Richard lang's program were better than the opponents in tactics and this is the main reason that it won. Searching deeper also generates better positional moves so you can know nothing based on watching the games. You need to give the opponent unequal hardware in order to get result of 50% and only in this case there is a way to find the program that is better in tactics based on a lot of games. If the winner was the first side to get a significant fail high then you can count it as one tactical point for the winner. If the loser is the first side to get a significant fail low then you can count it as a tactical point for the loser because it could see first the disaster. It may be interesting to know information about the programs that have better positional understanding but unfortunately today we have no information about it. We need some objective test to know and the important thing in order to know is to give programs unequal hardware. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.