Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 23:42:21 06/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 02:04:27, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On June 27, 2005 at 21:58:51, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>Just because a program is strong at standard chess doesn't mean that it will be >>strong at Chess960. For instance there is a noticeable difference between >>standard Pharaon 3.3 and Standard Freenze, whereas according to my test, >>FRC-Freenze is almost equal in strength to Chess960 Pharaon 3.3. I find that hard to believe, usually when things look too good to be true it's because you just haven't played enough games yet... ;) >This is not at all surprising to me. It reflects the unability of most engines >to UNDERSTAND positional implications during opening. This will be covered in >traditional chess by a) opening libraries, b) optimized weights in piece type >specific coordinate related bonus/malus tables. > >Smirf is avoiding the use of such tables to force the programmer (in that case: >me) to improve the program to a better positional understanding by AVOIDING >such intelligence murdering piece-coordinate 'optimized' tables, and of course >by switching from huge looking-up tables corrupted chess to Chess960's freedom. You tell 'em Reinhard! :) Design philosophy or not, the question is what is it worth in real play Elo. I think unfortunately not much. Of course if the engine is used to having a good book and doesn't have any development terms on its own, then one could possibly be in for a grim awakening in FRC. >I am sorry about the fact, that Smirf's growing abilities are tested nearly by >nobody. Some feed back could be very helpful. Does Smirf support a protocol like UCI or WBI/WBII? -S. >Reinhard.
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.