Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:01:08 05/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 17:08:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 15:35:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 02, 2001 at 15:27:33, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2001 at 14:52:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 02, 2001 at 13:48:04, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>I would like to hear from the CCC group how much K will >>>>>gain from having the program for 3 months. In my view, >>>>>an advantage yes, but maybe not as much as I thought at >>>>>first. >>>>> >>>>>1. K may not have the HW for the match. >>>> >>>>That is irrelevant. That only means that the program will be a bit >>>>stronger tactically. But it does _not_ affect the knowledge at all. >>>>If it doesn't understand that a pair of isolated passers are stronger >>>>than a pair of connected passers in a king and pawn ending, then no >>>>amount of hardware is going to teach the program that, and he will >>>>find out such shortcomings quite easily. >>> >>>No >>>It is clear that if the hardware is good enough then search is going to teach >>>the program to avoid the mistake. >> >>no it isn't, when we are talking about a hardware advantage of barely 4. >>IE 8x1ghz vs 1.5ghz for a single cpu. That will fix a _few_ things. But >>it won't do a _thing_ to the positional holes in the program's evaluation. >> >> >>> >>>The question is simply if the hardware in the match is going to help. >>> >>>In part of the cases it can help. >>>Programs without the knowledge that you give in pawn endgame may find the right >>>move in some positions by search when they need a long search. >>> >>>I believe that I can compose a test position when programs without the right >>>knowledge are going to need 8 processors to find the right move at tournament >>>time control and you cannot be sure that my test position is not going to appear >>>in kramnik's game. >> >> >> >>Yes, but I can compose 100 positions where the depth is _not_ the issue. Either >>you understand what to do or you don't. Because you make evaluational decisions >>at the _tips_ of the tree. And if you don't get 'em right, you aren't going to >>go _another_ 30-40 plies deeper to let the search show the evaluation what is >>going to happen. >> >> >>> >>><snipped> >>>>>2. To get a real feel for Fritz 7 he will need the HW and >>>>> play 40/2 games. >>>> >>>> >>>>Not at all. Any GM I know can play blitz games and determine program >>>>weaknesses. >>> >>>This was exactly the mistake of adams against deep Junior in dortmund. >>> >>>He played the same opening against junior before the match and won at blitz but >>>unfortunately Junior played better at tournament time control and adams could >>>get only a draw. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>He didn't do what I suggested. I don't suggest using blitz games to find >>openings that you can win with. I suggested using blitz games to find out >>what your opponent doesn't understand evaluation-wise. Just play the games >>and watch its scores and PVs. > >Chessbase may give kramnik a version that shows no scores and no PVs. > >I am also not sure if the evaluation is going to be static evaluation. >It is possible to give 1 or 2 of the 8 processors to play comp-comp games >between Fritz with the default evaluation and Fritz with another evaluation in >order to learn to change slightly the evaluation during the game if Fritz with >the default evaluation is losing the games. > >Uri Uri, I like your thoughts on this. I hope the Fritz team utilizes every trick that is posted here. I think they will. BTW, they should pay you for this info, I am sure you have more tricks that could help Fritz. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.