Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:04:12 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 10:45:29, Torstein Hall wrote: >On December 28, 2002 at 09:45:02, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>[D] 8/8/pp6/2pp2p1/3p2Pk/3P1K1P/5PP1/8 b - - 0 1 >> >>Ruffian is the best analysis-engine I can think of. >>Ruffian 1.0.1 (96 MB hash)on Athlon@1.6Ghz finds the mate in 13 >>in 5 sec (Yes 0:05!!) . This is amazing. >>hey you out there with your 2.8 Ghz Xeons and Deep Fritz 7 engines. >>Try to beat that! >>hope Per-ola will bring out a native Chessbase version of this great program >>soon because there exists some problems with UCI version in Chessbase GUI. >>I would pay 25$ for a native CB engine. >>I dont need chess engines with much positional knowledge for analysis. every >>chessplayer >2200 has much more positional knowledge than all chess-engines >>together. > >Is this position a good test to see if a program has a lot of chess knowledge? >The faster its solved the position, the less it knows about chess...? >No, I think I must be wrong, probably is something with extending the right >lines. etc. etc. But the idea fasinated me, that there may be positions that is >best solved just counting material.... > >Torstein The poster claimed that he does not care about knowledge so this position is not supposed to be a test if the program has a lot of chess knowledge. I do not believe that chess knowledge is a disadvantage because without chess knowledge you may have no ideas where to extend. 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.