Author: martin fierz
Date: 11:44:45 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 14:23:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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). just wondering: what do you think fritz' problem is and how would you fix it? and do you think you could fix these problems in a single day? aloha martin
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.