Author: Joseph Ciarrochi
Date: 00:07:50 02/15/06
I have a naive question... in my understanding, Fruit has excellent search efficiency but not huge amounts of knowledge. In contrast, Fritz 9 and Rybka have substantial knowledge. If you can trust Rybka's depth outputs, it does not seem to be as quick at getting to deeper plys. I have observed that Fruit 2.2.1 tends to play poorly at blitz and improve steadly with long time controls, with it being an absolute god on the longest time controls (SSDF). In contrast, both rybka and fritz 9 play blitz well. do programs with more knowledge tend to play blitz better? Knowledge is kind of a quick, heuristic way of making a decision about what is likely to work. It presumably can come into play very quickly. In contrast, search takes time. However, it does discover when the knowledge is not useful (i.e., when the knowledge heuristic is inconsistent with the concrete variations uncovered by search; e.g., doubled pawns may generally be bad (knowledge heuristic), but in some situations can be quite good) is my reasoning correct? Maybe it would help for me to understand what constitutes "knowledge" in a chess program. I always presume its things like "doubled pawns are often bad" or two bishops are good, or it is often good to push pawns and have space.. best Joseph
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.