Author: Joseph Ciarrochi
Date: 18:12:07 12/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hee hee. if that is true, sune, it completely disproves my argument, and I will need another post-hoc explanation. In all fairness, i think it must be admited that rybka is about as good as the best engines at endgame (though we haven't seen shredder tested yet). It just isn't way better than the rest of the engines at endgame, as it is at everything else. best Joseph On December 31, 2005 at 19:37:17, Sune Larsson wrote: >On December 31, 2005 at 19:03:35, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: > >>It looks like rybka goes from -3 (my 40 4 test) to +1 (your 60 5 test) >> >>Is it possible that at longer time controls, Rybka's excellent search heuristics >>makes up for a lack of endgame knowledge? I've always thought that long seach >>can sometimes hide weaknesses. (e.g., at early ply, the weakness leads to a bad >>suggested line, and then at late ply, the comp finds a tactical shot against the >>line and changes its mind). >> >>In terms of tournment performance, i think your results are applicable when >>rybka goes into an endgame with 60 or so minutes on the clock. the results i >>reported perhaps apply when rybka has less time for the endgame (maybe less than >>40 minutes). Maybe this is why the newest rybka's seem to hord time for the >>endgame. > > > I think Jouni's 60/5 means 60 moves in 5 minutes - or?? > > puzzled regards > sune > >> >>In paderborn, I wonder what the average time left was when engines entered the >>endgame? >> >>best >>Joseph >> >>On December 31, 2005 at 17:02:13, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>I played 60/5 level match from Sune's positions: >>> >>>1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit 0½½0½½½11½½½01100110½0½010½½½½1½½½111½½0 20.5/40 >>>2 Fritz 9 1½½1½½½00½½½10011001½1½101½½½½0½½½000½½1 19.5/40 >>> >>>Hmm?!?!? "No endgame knowledge". Quite modest! >>> >>>Jouni
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.