Author: Victor Fernandez
Date: 14:47:40 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 13:01:22, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 06, 2002 at 10:38:45, Victor Fernandez wrote: > >>On May 06, 2002 at 10:16:16, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2002 at 09:59:13, Victor Fernandez wrote: >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>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 >> >> >>Sorry, Richard Lang says another different thing, >> >>"a chess program is an evaluation function" >> >>"There have been several changes in the evaluation function that have improved >>the results in the test" >> >>Victor > >I think that these several changes were only after he had a strong program. > >changes in the evaluation can help but most of the improvement comes from >search(I do not include simple chess knowledge that every top program has like >evaluating pawn strucuture). > >It is also clear that richard lang believes in search because Genius3 is a root >processor. > >Some people do not like these words and prefer to use do preprocesing but I >define for simplicty every program that does preprocessing that can change >significantly the score as a root processor. > >Explanation for people who do not understand what is a root processor: > > >When I say root processor I mean to say that the evaluation of Genius can be >changed significantly after the sides play good moves only >because of the fact that the root position is different and not because of deep >search in the new position. > >If a program suggests 1.e4 e5 with a score of 0-0.1 for white at depthes 10-15 >and if it also has after 1.e4 e5 a score of 1-1.1 for white at depthes 8-13 then >it is a root processor because the evaluation was changed not because of seeing >deeper. > >quiet moves like 1.e4 e5 are usually not good candidates to prove that a program >is a root processor. > >Genius sometimes change it's evaluation significantly after trading pieces or >castling so I consider it as a root processor. > >Uri Thanks for your explanation Uri, Victor
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.