Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 14:06:26 02/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 12:08:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. > Imagine you show a position to two chess players. The first, a low-rated player, takes twenty minutes to enumerate all sorts of bugus and irrelevant nonsense about what might happen or what both sides should do. The second, an experienced, high-rated player, looks for half a minute and simply says: "white should mobilize his pawn majority here". Who gave the more knowledgeable assessment? Vas > > >>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.