Author: Ed Murak
Date: 00:28:06 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 03:16:00, Chrilly Donninger wrote: Thanks for the anticipated interesting reply. >>>Maybe Rybka is a Nimzo clone :-) >> >> >> >>No, maybe not. :) >> >>More interesting is - will HYDRA become a RYBKA clone? :) >> >One of the most important inventions in Computer chess was the Autoplayer. >People have before played against other programms, but this was cumbersome. >Since then the development is a (co-)evolution. The programmers react on the >ideas of others. Yes. The whole informational system "here" is a semi-chaotic knowledge procurement/*extraction*/exchange one, and competition (intellectual, more than financial) drives us chess-lovers forward in this little pond. The evolutionary mechanism is clear in a 3-way-only outcome game like ours. >It is some sort of silent conversation. E.g. when Shredder came >with his impressive search depths, the other programmers had to react too. One >can not sit there and watch how Shreddere outsearches one ones creation. One >also knows: There is stil a lot of potential in pruing. After all it works in >Shredder. Silent conversation - yes, perfect. I began a little peeking inside RYBKA with possibly as much enthusiasm as you, (my interest being in no way commercial or professional). This little fish has something of a spark in it, IMO. >The same will happen with Rybka. It has the advantage of being a new species >which is somewhat different to the current population. But the ecosystem will >react on Rybka. Thats the way evolution works. I agree absolutely. Evolution works not smoothly, as you know, but in many little fits and starts. How many little fitful jumps before RYBKA is overtaken, and how long they will take, that talk is for another day. Of course there is RYBKA 2.0 :) >A concrete Hydra-example: In the Match Topalov-Hydra, Bilbao 2004, Hydra got a >passed pawn on d3 and was very happy about the position. Actually the idea was >quite bad and we almost lost the game. So we reduced the value of central-passed >pawns in the Middlegame. Rybka does not know about this and likes to push his >d/e pawn. Hydra does not care, because it was told to avoid the >"Topalovmatch-pawn-push" (it works always in both directions). I have increased >the bonus now again slightly to avoid this problem against Rybka. And I will >probably kick myself in the ass, if Hydra makes against a top GM the next time >the same stupid move like in Bilbao. I know the game but did not know HYDRA's state of mind. Do you promise to keep the Tm-p-p setting unchanged prior to and including the next SGM showdown? If so, we could see evolutionary behavior (humanoid or mechanistic) demonstrated in effect again. ;) >Chrilly
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.