Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:41:37 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2000 at 03:56:47, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On December 10, 2000 at 23:06:56, Christophe Theron wrote:
<snipped>
>this behaviour is very often. its in almost any game fritz loses. its in the
>engine for versions. they never changed. and they changed much from version 4 to
>5.32 to 6.
The latest version is Deep Fritz and the question is if Deep fritz has similiar
evaluation.
>
>>Now you can disagree, as I do, with this choice. However I can understand it,
>>because until version 12.0, Chess Tiger was doing the same. And not taking care
>>of king attacks is much, much simpler in term of programming efforts.
>
>right. but this way it is not plying chess.
>chesstiger12 and even 11.2 played better quality of chess than fritz ever did.
>thats the difference.
>i don't care how you do it, as long as it produces good chess.
>
>i care in the moment it produces weak shit chess (lost checker games).
>
>
>>Now I have changed my mind, and the best proof is Gambit Tiger. But my task is
>>huge. Correct evaluation of king attacks is extremely difficult (solve this and
>>you are close to solving chess).
>
>there is no correct evaluation in chess.
>you have to create your own idea how much a king attack is worth for YOU
>depending on your playing style.
There is a better evaluation that produce more wins and the problem is to
discover better evaluation.
>
>what is a king attack worth ? a pawn ? 2 pawns ? 3 ? 4 if you have mate chances
>? 5 if you make mate-net ? 6 if you get 6/7th rank ? and 9 is you
>have mates ??
>
>what is a connected passed pawn worth ?
>which pieces can win against king in an attack, which not ?
>
>this is all in cstal !
>cstal knows which pieces, and it gives a value ! but these values are not
>accurate. nobody knows what is accurate. they are inaccurate. it doen't matter,
>the only reason cstal loses is not because the values are inaccurate
>but because it gets outsearched and because chris has such a slow search.
>("all chess programmers are lazy").
All chess programmers are lazy???
I disagree.
I think that all the programmers of top programs worked a lot of time about
their program.
I guess that the programmers of all the top programs worked more than 1000 hours
on their program.
The lazy guys did not develop a chess program or developed only a very weak
program.
>
>>Fritz maybe underestimates the king attacks.
>
>right. it's unknown country for it.
I disagree.
There are positions when it does not evaluate king attacks correctly but
Fritz sacrificed a piece for a king attack in the game against Crafty in the
last WMCCC.
>
>
>>As Genius and many others do.
>
>good for other programs. they get no title at championships without knowing.
>they play checkers, other program play chess.
Fritz3 got a title and Fritz also got a second place in the last WMCCC.
Second place is almost a title.
I do not see that Fritz is clearly weaker than the opponents.
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.