Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: A comparison of engines' evaluation

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 05:48:39 01/01/03


[D] r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq b3 0 4

The Evans Gambit, arising after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4, is a good
example of positional material sacrifice. By sacrificing his b pawn, white gains
a number if precious tempos, thus seizing the opening initiative. While the 4.b4
gambit might not be better than the other 4th moves here, it usually reaches a
balanced position in which white has enough compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.

Now let us see how the top engines evaluate this position. There is not much
tactics involved here, so this gives us a good opportunity to compare the
programs' evaluation (their chess knowledge).

In the table below, the evaluation of each engine is recorded after 1 minute
analysis (since the evaluation is largely positional, no significant score
change was noticed from one ply to another, so most probably even deeper
searches will not change the result):


Engine            Score
------            -----
Junior 7           0.06
Fritz 7           -0.41
Shredder 6.02     -0.33
Chess Tiger 14    -0.82  (Gambit Tiger 2 also produced the same score)
Hiarcs 8          -0.84
Crafty 19.1       -0.81


Interesting points:

    - Junior 7 was the only program who evaluated the position realistically.

    - Gambit Tiger 2 which is tuned for sacrificial play, did not evaluate
      the position differently from Chess Tiger 14.

    - Hiarcs 8 which is said to incorporate the most chess knowledge, displays
      the least chess understanding in this position! (Conclusion: more chess
      knowledge does not necessarily mean better evaluation.)

Omid.

P.S. An analysis of Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 will be appreciated.



This page took 0.01 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.