Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: ProDeo: what is Chess Knowledge?

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 08:35:14 08/12/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 12, 2004 at 10:28:33, Albert Silver wrote:

>On August 12, 2004 at 02:34:46, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>On August 12, 2004 at 01:38:58, Telmo C. Escobar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have observed that the main personality (Rebel.eng) has a line that reads
>>>
>>>[Chess Knowledge = 100]
>>>
>>>while the Karpov.eng personality has
>>>
>>>[Chess Knowledge = 250]
>>>
>>>instead. What does this parameter do?
>>>
>>>
>>>  Telmo
>>
>>
>>http://www.rebel.nl/personal.htm
>>
>>Ed


>Thanks again, and interesting. You mentioned in the descriptions the various
>advantages of higher settings for some of the parameters, notably the Chess
>Knowledge. Aside from the King Safety, I take it that you now believe the
>default values are still best.

Yes.

Although Thorsten will strongly protest :)



>A number of the settings aren't clear to me all the same. At least the
>differences between them. There are a number of parameters linked to attacking,
>such as Attack, King Safety, and Attractiveness. The difference between them is
>very unclear to me.

[Attacking = xxx] is meant to be the successor of [Anti-GM = xxx] but since I
don't compete any longer against GM's I have no idea how it would perform. The
function searches for complexity on the board.

[Attractiveness = 125] simply is a multiplier of all positional components of a
position. A value of 125 will multiply the evaluation with 1.25


>Another point is the selectivity of the search. I see Selective Search = 100,
>and below a group of settings called Adjusted Selectivity (turned off, but
>still). There's also the setting of Search Technique. I noticed in the 10.5
>description a Deep, Deepest, etc. In PD it is Null Move. I take it that they
>turned out to be less efficient?

It's best to ignore these options, if there is an improvement after all it is
very small. Just keep the default settings.



>                                       Albert
>
>P.S. In the position with 1.e5!, wasn't it Spassky who played that move, and not
>Capablanca?


No idea.

Ed



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.