Author: Geert van der Wulp
Date: 07:28:57 02/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2004 at 10:20:08, Stephen Ham wrote: >On February 27, 2004 at 08:46:30, Geert van der Wulp wrote: > >>David, Keith >> >>Thank you for your replies. This is the information that I was looking for. >>Fortunately there are people here who can still read. >> >>Regards, >> >>Geert > >Dear Geert, > >While we can all read, it is unfortunate that your message was ambiguous, to say >the least. For example, your subject line addressed strictly evaluation. However >your posts shifted the focus to human intuition and style and then later shifted >again to anaylsis - three entirely different things. > >Here's my opinions, for whay that's worth: > >In general, Shredder 8 is probably the strongest engine, in computer versus >computer action. Is it the best against humans? Who knows? My perception is that >Shredder 8 is indeed very strong, but its evaluation is not to be trusted and it >doesn't have a particulary human playing style. So for analysis of middlegame >positions, it will indeed find strong moves, worthy of further investigation, >but it probably won't evaluate the position accurately. > >Shifting to one of your other topics, human-like style, then I think the clear >preference is for Rebel 12. While it won't deeply probe tactical positions like >Shredder 8 can, it seems to produce very human-like moves and almost gives the >feeling that it understands the position and plays accordingly. Hiarcs isn't bad >either in this respect. Rebel 12 is also a fine analysis machine if you alow it >an extended analysis period (it doesn't seem to perform well if it's allowed >brief amounts of time). > >Shifting to your other topic, evaluation, Shredder 8 is a failure here. My >favorite is Fritz 7 (I don't have Fritz 8) for the most accurate evaluations of >positions. Fritz is generally an accurate evaluator throughout the game >(opening, middlegame, and endgame). > >But Geert, the above is all relative to the position at hand. Some engines are >particularly strong/weak in certain types of positions. They each have their >peculiarities, so you need to experiment to find what gives you the greatest >confidence. For me, it's the experimentation in various positions that I enjoy >doing the most, with my engines. > >All the best, > >Stephen Stephen, Thank you for your reply. Your points make sense to me. Even the ones about the chaotic shift in the nature of my questions ;-) But I have been given the link http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm where a lot of positions from World Chess Championchips (human) are given to the programs for evaluation. So I can see for myself in which positions a certain program is strong and what his (her?) weak points are. By the way, in my questions I always made it clear that I am looking for an engine which has a good "tactical feeling", because I know that every discipline will give different results. Regards, Geert
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.