Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 07:23:59 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 08:59:55, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Well, but Hiarcs8 plays as good chess as Fritz (source ICC-rating), and is a slow searcher compared to Fritz. Can you say that about Movei? :-) Andreas
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.