Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:08:11 02/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 10:04:28, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >We need to keep our terminology straight. <sigh> > >Chess knowledge (in the context of computer chess) is what makes a program play >well. Or worse! - This is one of your contributions I dont like. Rybka is allegedly good although with less chess knowledge. What makes a program play well is MORE than what you claim. The chess knowledge must be well applicated, this is one aspect. And then of course, you are always better if you have implemented a specific knowledge all others dont have yet. And this is the one aspect of Rybka's actual superiority, the other is something purely technical. Well that is what I have understood from Chrilly, Bob and others. If you could state something about that topic in time, before the secrets will be reveiled anyway, you would make a valuable message to all of us. >At standard time controls, Fruit probably has a tiny bit more chess >knowledge than Fritz and Hiarcs. > >You can also talk about the complexity of a chess program. Hiarcs is probably >the most complex of the above three, and Fruit the simplest. Shredder is another >complex program. I suspect that the more complex programs are better at faster >time controls. > >BTW - one (unfortunate) way to measure program complexity is: > >[program bugs or weird behaviors] * [program ELO] You know what is unfortunate? That you now begin to talk about other interesting programs but not your own. Not that that would be expected. Let's continue a bit longer and everybody will understand your method of obfuscating. ;) But anyway it's good to have you here. I like to read such messages. BTW I dont expect answers. I'm just analysing. > >Vas
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.