Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Comparing Bionic-Impakt vs Bionic

Author: Albrecht Heeffer

Date: 00:10:35 01/27/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 26, 1999 at 14:59:21, Dann Corbit wrote:


>The point which I was hoping to make was that a 100% match does not prove guilt
>nor does a 100% failure to match prove innocense.  This exercise can prove
>neither (IMO - but I could be wrong, of course).
>
>For example, I could change a couple numeric constants in the eval function of
>Cilkchess and make it play wildly different.  It would probably take 15 minutes
>of effort.  Or I could completely change the architecture and have it play much
>the same.
>
>My point is that the exercise does not have the intended effect.

I completely agree. What is interesting is that the version of Bionic based
on Crafty agrees very well with the Basic version of Bionic developed over
the past years, when given sufficiant time. Both version do not share a
single line of code (different programming language) but for instance they
play the same Scotchs opening when you disable the book and let them go
to the same search depth. This is not surprising as Bionic Impakt uses the
same evaluation parameters and knowledge as the Basic version. So Bionic-
Impakt really is a Bionic clone. The Crafty engine allows us to search
much deeper.

ALbrecht Heeffer



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.