Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:47:13 07/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2005 at 13:18:06, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On July 10, 2005 at 21:38:58, Lin Harper wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Djordje, >> In addition to the interesting info in this thread, there are just a couple >>of things I would like to add. >> In the case of search depth versus knowledge, you quite rightly pointed out >>that search depth *is* knowledge. Since the basic problem of a chess programmer >>is correct allocation of limited processing capacity, perhaps in the case of >>Fruit2.1, the programmer has succeeded in his effort to include only vital, not >>unnecessary knowledge, so that the released capacity has driven the search >>another ply, or at least part of a ply. This applies to Shredder too, of course. >> I remember some time ago the author of Hiarcs saying that he had vastly >>increased the knowledge in his new version. This could only have come at the >>expense of search depth, and so was a mistake. >> Just one other point re: Fruit2.1. I could'nt help notice that Fruit2.1 has a >>preference for knights over bishops. This I noticed over a series of too many >>games played on Arena for it to be random. I'm only guessing, but could it be >>that the knight, handled correctly, is a stronger piece overall than a bishop? >>And that this has not been recognized in the chess community until now simply >>because it has been impossible to search deep enough to demonstrate? Food for >>thought. >> all the best >> Lin > > >Hi Lin, > >nice to hear from you, as always. Yes, Fruit might be the currently optimal way >to conduct search, perhaps even more so than any other program. I disagree Fabien already said that fruit has search bugs and the main improvement from old fruit to newer version is the evaluation. I guess that Fabien may do Fruit 100 elo better by only improving the search by improving things like order of moves and avoiding useless extensions. I guess that >Fabien will have to modify it a little to make it even stronger. Alas, there >may be a rub there, as any addition to the optimal search is dangerous and may >upset the overall strength. Fruit's search is not optimal. It may be better than the poor search of most programs but it is not close to be optimal. > >Chess System Tal comes to my mind as the knowledge-laden program that had >promise. I doubt if Chess system tal has better knowledge than fruit. However, it appears now that only increased depth and better search >point the way to go. CST would be decimated in its match with Fruit, as, >unfortunately, is the case with any knowledgeable program, no matter how >attractive its playing style may be. > >Simulating human chess knowledge is not the way chess programming should go, it >slows down the search so much so that such programs overlook some important >tactics. I agree that simulating human chess knowledge is not the way to go for the simple reason that humans do not know a lot of things including not knowing how they think. I disagree that more knowledge is not the way to go but it is important to check that the knowledge that it implemented is productive and help the program to play better. > >I have noticed Fruit's preference of knights over bishops too, as well as its >occasional tendency to sac a light piece for a couple of passer pawns. I have >also noticed that it undervalues rooks... These could be interesting pointers >for Fabien... > >Thanks. I did not notice that Fruit prefers knights over bishop and I found that in one position from my correspondence game it is Fruit that likes to keep pair of bishops and not Shredder. 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.