Author: Ryan B.
Date: 02:04:31 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2005 at 04:24:20, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >>The endgame knowledge in Rybka is very good. The claim of no endgame knowledge >>was just easier than explaining the distance to mate bug. I think fixing the >>bug will help some but not as much as people think. >> >>Ryan > >Hi Ryan, > >my impression from watching games is also that the endgame knowledge is already >good. So I am basing on the claim by Vasik that here many things have to be >improved still. > >About improvement I do not have a concrete guess, I only start to ask myself >generally where the limits are. ELO 3200? No limit at all? > >Best Regards >Heinz I think elo of computer programs can be a little deceptive because a small advantage in computer chess gets bigger in computer vs computer matches because computer programs do not adapt to weaknesses and passed games vs a given opponent naturally like humans do. It is very interesting to me that a program can be better than a top GM in a 6 game match however I feel I have better chances of adapting to that program and stealing a game vs the computer than I do of getting a game vs the top GM. I think the jumps in computer chess improvement are very exciting and it will be very interesting to see where it all is a year from now. I think Rybka does make some good progress in computer vs human play also, something I think got ignored in computer chess too often while in the catch shredder era. Ryan
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.