Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Testmethods for n=0, n=1 and n=>800 - For Beginners and 'old Hands'

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 08:17:20 09/13/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 13, 2002 at 11:16:07, Uri Blass wrote:

>On September 13, 2002 at 11:06:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On September 13, 2002 at 10:56:10, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On September 13, 2002 at 10:38:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I disagree.
>>>>>Most of the population of chess programs is clearly weaker than the top
>>>>>programs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gnuchess is losing against crafty even if you give gnuchess hardware that is 10
>>>>>times faster if the time control is slow enough and gnuchess is not a weak
>>>>>program but at the level of the average amateur.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>I agree. This was chapter one though. Seems fair enough that GNU which has no
>>>>clue about endgames, tablebases, not even GM books, and then being amateur, is
>>>>weaker than Crafty. Was GNU ever tuned on Crafty? I mean if I would take GNU as
>>>>a pro I would make at least 8th place in SSDF out of it. But actually we are
>>>>comparing apples and beans. GNU is not of "this" world now. BTW I played
>>>>SIBIRIAN, for that nice prog I promissed you the same! Implement all the modern
>>>>stuff and it will play billy bully with FRITZ, I suppose. Not even needing
>>>>tablebases. Cough.
>>>>
>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>
>>>I have to disagree again.
>>>I do not know how the book of gnuchess was build but it is not so bad and it has
>>>a lot of variety.
>>>
>>>I do not think that gnu lose games because of book.
>>>Tablebases are also not very important.
>>>
>>>Gnu is going to lose also against list inspite of the fact that list has no book
>>>and not because of tablebases advantage.
>>>
>>>Gnu need better search rules and better evaluation in order to be in the same
>>>level of the top programs.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>Again I must agree. Since all modern progs are founded on these free (?) sources
>>by defintion they are stronger. How could they be weaker? That is the same with
>>the pro's which were all founded in parts on CRAFTY. How could CRAFTY still be
>>stronger?
>
>The pro are not based on crafty and crafty clearly has knowledge that most pro
>do not have.
>
>It is not easy to understand crafty and to implement the knowledge that in it
>about hash tables and about other things.
>
>Programmers usually prefer to develop their program and not to try to understand
>everything crafty.

should be everything in crafty.

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.