Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:38:29 08/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2000 at 10:11:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 27, 2000 at 17:58:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 27, 2000 at 17:25:55, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >> >>>>>Which program had the best opening book? Shredder 5.0 >>> >>>you must be kidding! >>>shredder´s book was so very bad that shredder was named there "houdini-chess" >>>because first he has had to untie himself. >>> >>>sorry, but it was one of the worst one´s. >> >>A good book is not a book that leads you to better positions but a book that >>lead you to better result. >> >>I read that the 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 line shredder has more than 90% result and >>if it is the case this line was a very good line. >> >>I read that the line against Sos was also good. >> >>I do not say that book of shredder was the best but I disagree that it was one >>of the worst >> >> >>>alex´book was BY FAR the best and there is NO doubt about that. >>>having killer line´s but also with hardly a whole. >>> >>>>>Which program had the worst opening book? >>> >>>here you can say shredder. >>> >>>>>Which program had the best middlegame? Junior >>> >>>i prefer fritz >>> >>I was impressed by the way that Junior played the middle game against >>Shredder,Rebel and tiger. > >I was not very impressed by Junior in the middlegame, it had everywhere >a 0.00 score as if it's completely ignoring the world. It looks to me >that juniors search is getting outdated, but that the bad way in which >most programs attack and bad finishing dominated, like DIEP-JUNIOR could not >get decided by DIEP in the middlegame. > >For sure Junior defended very well, but usual after doing some real stupid >moves as it hardly got a worse middlegame position. > >For example the DIEP-Junior game, here DIEP predicted dxe5 instead of >fxe5?, after fxe5 junior was in big trouble. Junior obviously didn't >see this because it doesn't evaluate pins like DIEP does. It probably could find dxe5 with faster hardware. Junior understood after fxe5 fxe5 that it cannot play Bg7. Seeing more 2 captures is only one ply for Junior so I guess that it could see it with faster hardware and avoid the problem. > >>Fritz could get nothing in the middle game against Junior so I prefer >>Junior(london) in the middle game. > >I thought fritz improved a lot, but it seems basically improved >for blitz to me. It sure isn't a preprocessor anymore, but the >knowledge inside its evaluation is stil limiting its great search. > >>>>>Which program had the worst middlegame? >>>>>Which program was the best in the endgame? Shredder 5.0 >>> >>>yes, but even close rebel and tiger. >> >>>>>Which program was the worst in the endgame? >>>>>Which program is best in closed positions? Rebel >>> >>>ok >>> >>>>>Which program is best in noticing attacks and attacking? Shredder 5.0 >>> >>>i would prefer junior. >>> >>>>>Which program is best in defense? Shredder 5.0 >>> >>>no doubt. >>> >>>>>Which program is best in playing human players? Shredder 5.0 >>> >>>no, no, no. much better is rebel. >>> >>>>>Finally, which program is best overall? Shedder 5.0 >>> >>>not so very clear. rebel has the best evaluation, tiger the best search and >>>fritz the best combination of these two points. bt for me it is clear, that >>>these four programs are dominating at the moment. >> >>It is not clear. > >>Junior was the most interesting program in the event. >>I think that this program did the biggest change relative to previous versions. > >I don't know what Amir changed to junior, but it sure looked drastically >to me. > >When talking about number of lines of source code changes, i'm sure that >i changed more at DIEP as i changed really a lot in DIEP. This resulted >however in bad performance, so probably no one cares (as people kick >on results), but it's looking real good for DIEP's future. > >>Sometimes the change was good(see the games against Rebel and tiger) >>Sometimes the change caused trouble when Junior played h5 against shredder or >>let nimzo to win it by sacrificing the exchange. > >Nimzo is always overestimating passed pawns, so it was no big deal that >nimzo found this sacrafice. In Nimzo-The King the same thing happened >but with opposite results. In Nimzo-Shredder , there nimzo had a won >position but couldn't profit for it as it feared the passed pawns >too much. Against junior nimzo was just lucky in my eyes, even though >i predicted during the game that nimzo would perhaps win it with an >exchange sacrafice. I just said this because i find juniors search for >the future really outdated. pruning interesting moves with 3 plies or >something similar is really not gonna improve it for the future. It >will always miss logical human continuations in the future. It has >a certain level and without changing its search its gonna get real hard. > >>I know that Rebel is a preprocessor so I doubt if it has the best evaluation. > >I agree here completely. Rebel sure isn't bad compared to most, but >it's really getting a bit old now. > >>I do not like preprocessors for analysis. > >Idem > >>I may analyze a position when the computer say that white have an advantage when >>after castling the computer suddenly say that black has an advantage when it >>cannot see deeper. >> >>I know that not all the programs behave like this. > >Oh well another zillion things go wrong with preprocessors, the >big ADVANTAGE is however that computerchess is hard, so making a good >non-preprocessor is real hard, where making a preprocessing kind of >thing is very easy to debug and it finds shots fast. > >>Amir admitted that there are cases when Junior is a preprocessor but Amir hope >>to get rid of it. > >Oh well, Amir will face a real big problem then. He searched >this championship 17 ply. He searched also 17 ply at a quad xeon in >paderborn. So obviously he has not slowed down Junior. Depth 17 of Junior does not mean 17 plies. It means only 9 plies if you talk about brute force search and it means more than 9 plies Junior does not do a lot of preprocessing. It may be a processor of something but usually not of the root. I usually do not get situations when Junior shows draw evaluation and after castling or trading queen it shows a clear advantage(I did not test Junior6 but only previous versions but I do not think that Junior6 is worse). Junior can learn from previous search and usually have the same evaluation if the opponent does the expected move. I know that part of the other programs do not show this behaviour. Uri
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.