Author: blass uri
Date: 10:01:27 10/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1998 at 12:37:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 17, 1998 at 05:23:04, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On October 17, 1998 at 04:57:00, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >> >>>Gambisoft posts: >>> >>>"Customers report unisono that JUNIOR 5 runs at top speed. We can >>>confirm this. With 350 MHz the search depth starts double digit most >>>of the time!" >>> >>>Results of the engine seem to support the claim that it is a very strong engine. >>>However, when running it against Fritz 5 and especially Hiarcs on Junior >>>platform I've got the impression that, fast as it may be, it is not intelligent >>>enough... sometimes it seems to make moves that not even a patzer would make. >> >>There are positions that every program does sometime moves that not even a >>patzer would make. >> >>I assume that you are talking about positions that Junior5 does mistakes and >>other programs do not do mistakes. >> >>Can you post some positions that you are talking about? >> >>I assume that you are talking about the early stage of the opening. >>It usually does not cause Junior problems against computers because usually >>Junior is in book in these positions. >> >>> >>>It may go 2 or 3 plies ahead of Crafty or Fritz.. but at the detriment of >>>position and basic chess rules. >> >>The depth of Junior5 is not the number of plies. >> >>The depth is something close to the number of captures+the number of threat >>moves+2*the number of regular moves. >> >>I do not think that it is tactically stronger than fritz5(The reason that it has >>good results against computers is mainly positional reason). >> >>Uri > >The search depth is not a good indication of a program's strength. > >For example I know several small changes (generally 1 or 2 lines of code >changes) that give Tiger one more ply in depth, or even 2 plies more. > >Very impressive when you look at the main lines on the screen. You have the >impression that this version is going to smoke any other program. > >But when you try to prove it by playing a lot of real games, you just realize >that the program does not play better. Or even worse, that you have lost some >strength in the process. > >So every programmer has to make choices in this field. The only thing I'm >looking for is strength. The resulting average search depth is just a "side >effect" of these optimizations, and sometimes a better version is a version that >searches less deep. This has been the case when I switched from Tiger 11.3 to >Tiger 11.4. > >Amir has a strong program that seems to search very deep. I am not sure about "seem to search very deep" If this was the case It was a better solver than other program and I do not see that it is better in tactics than other top programs. I explained that the depth of Junior5 is not the depth of other programs The depth is something close to the number of captures+the number of threat moves+2*the number of regular moves and it is not the case in other programs. I did not say that it is important to have a fast searcher that search deeper. I simply replied someone who said that Junior can see more plies than fritz or crafty. Uri > The same strength can >also be achieved by a program with a shallower search. It's just a question of >tuning. > >In the computer area, and especially in the computer chess area, you can achieve >the same goal by different paths. Take a look at CSTal for example. > > > > Christophe
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.