Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:02:24 10/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2000 at 08:36:07, pete wrote: >On October 28, 2000 at 20:15:02, Uri Blass wrote: >>I do not believe that it is only low branching factor. >> >>Genius has other problems. >> >>1)It does less extensions than other programs and cannot extend more than 12 >>plies. >> >>It canot see lines of more than 32 plies. >> >>2)There are positions that it does not understand when other programs >>understand. >> >>Other programs worked many years about improving their evaluation when lang did >>not do it and it is natural that other programs got better evaluation function >>in part of the positions. >> >>Uri > >I tend to disagree , at least I suspect your point of view is very hard to prove >. > >It does sound very logical to assume years of work on evaluation has payed off >but it is very rare to see Genius judging positions in a ridiculous way . I expect you to see cases when Genius evaluates positions wrong if you do more games. I saw cases when Genius did not evaluate correctly king attack. It falled into a king attack against chess system tal many years ago because of wrong evaluation and I expect it also to fall into king attacks against gambittiger. It did not happen in the 3 games that you posted but it does not say that it is not going to happen. There are cases when Genius3's evaluation is superior relative to Gambit but I believe that there are also cases when it is the opposite. 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.