Author: James T. Walker
Date: 10:09:23 10/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2000 at 10:02:24, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Hello Uri, I may be wrong but I think you cannot rely on Gambit's score for positions as they are kind of artificial. Similiar in my opinion to MChess pro. Sometimes the scores are elevated to force the attack when it is speculation. Only my opinion though. Jim
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.