Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:59:55 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 08:43:12, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 08:25:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 25, 2002 at 08:04:37, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >> >>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:49:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:43:52, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:12:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 06:51:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 06:29:07, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>I did not think only about crafty. >>>>>>>>There were other cases when programmers released versions with no improvement or >>>>>>>>at least it is not clear if there was an improvement: >>>>>>>>Gandalf,Nimzo,Mchess,Genius >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Based on eng-eng matches I guess. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that most people care only about them. >>>>>>I do not care about games against humans because it is clearly only a question >>>>>>of time until computers beat humans at all time controls. >>>>>> >>>>>>comp-comp is the interesting struggle and being better in comp-comp can also >>>>>>help to get better results against humans. >>>>>> >>>>>>Computer also can play for the same ideas that humans play so being better at >>>>>>beating them means in most cases also being better against humans. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are programs that can play for king attack and I do not think that you >>>>>>need humans to see the problems of your program against king attack if you have >>>>>>these problems. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can let your program play against sjeng. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I disagree. Better performance in eng-eng matches is no guarantee that a >>>>>programm performs better in matches against humans. >>>>> >>>>>And it leads the whole computer chess development into the false direction, >>>>>with no new concepts. >>>> >>>>I see no reason why not. >>>>New concepts can be productive to beat chess programs. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Look at the Kramnik-Fritz match games 2 and 3. In tactical positions, with lots >>>of pieces and queens, chess engines are not bad today (and this is indeed an >>>achievement of eng-eng matches). But in the other positions, the engines have >>>not a clue, are chanceless, and this will not improve from eng-eng matches, >>>because all the engines have this flaw. >> >>I do not think that all of them. >>There are engines that do not play a3 in game 3. >> >>Other engines have different holes in their knowledge so I do not think that >>Fritz has less knowledge than them. >> >>Uri > >I do. Fritz = fast, not much knowledge. Hiarcs8 = slooow, a lot of knowledge. > >Unfortunately, I don't own Fritz, so I can not prove that. But I think it's >obvious, and nothing anybody will say will change my mind. :) > >Andreas My private version of movei is a slow searcher relative to Fritz and it is at similiar speed to hiarcs(the public free version is also a slow searcher but about 1.5 times faster in nodes per seconds than my private version). I can tell you that Movei of today has no knowledge about king safety or about passed pawns and weak pawns but if you use your logic you are not going to believe me because you are going to say that movei is slower than Fritz so it must have a lot of knowledge. 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.