Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:23:03 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 13:28:50, Mike S. wrote: >Percentages, based on a large comp-comp database: > >Engine | #Games total W B | total eQE* W/eQE B/eQE >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Fritz 7 | 784 69% 72% 65% | 59% (#57) 53% 67% >Chess Tiger 14 | 850 66% 71% 62% | 72% (#71) 73% 71% >Shredder 6/-P. | 743 61% 65% 57% | 58% (#58) 63% 53% >Junior 7 | 799 55% 58% 53% | 41% (#60) 25% ! 56% > >*) "eQE" = early queen exchange (within the first 10 moves) > >Fritz 7's white percentage after an early exchange of the queens was 53% only, >compared to it's general white average of 72%! Remarkable also Tiger 14's result >with black: Much better (71% to 62%) without queens. Desastrous was Junior 7's >result with white when the queens were off the board soon: only 25% (in 30 games >of that kind). > >It looks as if the engines each are very different, in how they depend on having >the queen... with Shredder 6/-Paderborn showing the smallest impact. > >For games with Black against Fritz 7 or Junior 7 (and probably against others >too for which I didn't search the statistics), it could be promising to have an >opening book which favours eQE variants... But that of course must not have >"wholes" in other (more common) lines, so it can't be done by simply generate an >opening tree based on an eQE games database only. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl I don't think it is too surprising. It just highlights a weakness that programs fail to understand basic endgame ideas, and rely more on tactics than on knowledge to move along thru a game. If a program has some basic holes in its knowledge about endgames, then removing the queens is going to highlight those holes. Or, the inverse, keeping queens on tends to cover up those holes, at least for a while. Programs that don't understand majorities, weak pawns, distant majorities/passers, which minor pieces work best with pawns in various configurations, the fact that pawns on both wings give better winning chances than pawns on one wing, etc, are going to have great trouble with GM players. I've given some examples of things I've had to fix after watching GMs pick on the same hole over and over. Today I don't see those huge holes cause me a lot of trouble (yes I still have holes, to be sure, but not the building-sized holes some "tactical" programs possess..) and I don't particularly care if queens come off early or not. If you hear someone complain about an early queen trade, you can rest assured they _know_ they have some serious endgame holes that need work... And you can also rest assured that after the kind of practice Kramnik has had with Fritz, that he _knows_ what kind of holes are there and he's going to park in them every day, since they can't be fixed due to match rules (stupid rules I might add).
This page took 0.01 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.