Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A comparison of engines' evaluation

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 06:25:51 01/01/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 01, 2003 at 09:05:26, Uri Blass wrote:

>On January 01, 2003 at 08:48:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>[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):
>
>It may be interesting to check.
>
>It is possible that deep search may translate positional advantage that the
>program does not understand to positional advantage that it understands.
>
>>
>>
>>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.)
>
>I already read that hiarcs is more materialistic than Fritz when Fritz is more
>materialistic than Junior.
>
>
>>
>>Omid.
>>
>>P.S. An analysis of Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 will be appreciated.
>
>Movei gives -0.65/11,-0.62/12,-0.58/13,-0.58/14 from white's point of view.
>
>Uri

Now Movei say -0.55/15

depth=15 +0.55 c5b4 c2c3 b4a5 e1g1 g8f6 c4b5 a5b6 d1a4 d8e7 d2d3 e8g8 b1d2 e7e6
c1a3 c6e7
Nodes: 240085635 NPS: 155678
Time: 00:25:42.19

If people are interested they can give public movei to analyze it for some hours
on better hardware and report the results.

I used 64 mbytes on A1000 and public movei(latest movei has no difference in the
evaluation for this moment and I prefer to give results that can be reproducable
by other people).

I suspect that movei may get depth 17 or 18 if you give it some hours on fast
hardware.

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.