Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:42:50 09/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2004 at 11:51:06, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 11, 2004 at 10:27:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 11, 2004 at 08:05:17, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2004 at 21:25:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I wrote Crafty to play chess, within a fairly tighly defined set of conditions. >>>>It can play Fischer-random. >>> >>>I think you mean shuffle chess. >> >>No, I mean fischer-random. I've never released this version because of the eval >>issues. For example a bishop at b1 is a problem since I have code to discourage >>the very pawn pushes needed to free the bishop. Doing castling right was not >>hard, but altering the eval to do that right is not so easy. > >Well it's your decision but that seems like a small issue to me, I'd release it >anyway :) > >Perhaps the pawn push code could be implemented differently ie. by penalizing >all white bishops&knights on rank 1, or perhaps "don't destroy future potential >king-pawn shields while the king is still in the center"... I do some of that. But the pieces can end up on squares where I normally don't want to push pawns... This is probably fixable, but not trivially. Other issues (IE g3 after O-O if white has a light-squared bishop to fill g2, but in FR that bishop might be elsewhere and not able to get to g2 easily. I saw lots of such stuff in testing so I just put the stuff aside... > >>> >>>>But not exceptionally well as it doesn't have an >>>>evaluation that understands the odd starting positions. It will play the wild >>>>game on ICC where all the pawns start on the 7th rank ready to promote, and all >>>>your own pieces are in _front_ of those pawns. Its eval has no idea about that >>>>game other than what the tactical search can discover. >>> >>>It just depends on what one is interested in, it might be that the user/tester >>>has a broader taste in openings and wants to see how the engines do given those >>>circumstances. >>> >>>Of course you can make your engine play e4 constantly to get a higher rating if >>>that's all it knows how to play well, but personally I don't understand why that >>>would be interesting from neither a development or user point of view. >>> >>>In the long run I think it is actually a bit damaging for the development to >>>impose this kind of restriction. >>> >> >> >>How does your program do in 1. g4 openings? :) > >Relatively speaking no worse or better than other engines I hope. That's not what I asked. How does it do in g4 openings as opposed to normal openings? _that_ is the question. Why does it do badly? Would some eval tuning help? Probably. > >> >>Which GM is best "on average"? >> >>answer: Unknown. >> >>Next question, "Who cares?" >> >>Answer: Nobody I know of since matches to determine this are never played. > >If everybody had a copy of those GM's at home I'm sure these matches would be >played :) Sure, forcing Kasparov to play English openings, forcing Karpov to play the Latvian, etc. Wouldn't be very revealing however... > >The question of which engine to use for analysis is interesting in itself, >possibly it is even the primary question for most users, I know it is for me. >Books serve only to skew the picture here, IMO. I suspect there is _NO_ "best engine for analysis" any more than there is a "best human for analysis". I'd bet that each engine excels in certain parts of the game, and even worse, some excel against computers while others are more adept at playing humans. These "matches" don't show _nearly_ as much as many believe... > >-S.
This page took 0.04 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.