Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:35:36 12/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2005 at 23:19:39, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 08, 2005 at 19:32:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 08, 2005 at 19:09:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 2005 at 18:27:01, Claude Le Page wrote: >>> >>>>Sevral posts have noticed that Rybka is rather weak in endgames ,especially >>>>against Junior : this put me on apossible track : when its position is not >>>>clearly better , a Juhior engine uses its fastness to complicate , and Rybka >>>>must follow at maximum depth ,what is very costly in time : so , in endgame , >>>>Rybka is in zeitnot , and analyzes only at depth 13 where thr other is at depth >>>>17 >>>>The same happens between Junior and Hiarcs : Their Knowledge slowen hem too >>>>much in front of engines that use long calculated lines >>>>The same seem to happen vs TogaII 1.1a , whose style is similar to Juniors >>>>Could this be a possible explanation? >>> >>>The reason that rybka has problems in endgame is simply lack of knowledge about >>>the endgame. >>> >>>I do not understand why people try to find other excuses. >> >>Perhaps Rybka is a program that could benefit greatly from EGTB (such that a >>clear increase in Elo does occur from their use). > >I think that it can earn more from endgame knowledge. It is an interesting idea to me to try it both ways. I am thinking about it this way: Adding endgame knowledge will slow down the eval. Perhaps leaving it out and allowing the EGTB to handle endgame is good enough. But what happens when you have not got all the way to EGTB land (e.g. 10 chessmen on the board). So where the tradeoff lives it would be interesting to find out. Probably, some of the endgame knowledge is useful everywhere.
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.