Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:11:49 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 16:00:00, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On January 01, 2006 at 08:53:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I agree but I do not see a reason not to count qsearch nodes and the author did >>not admit that he does not count qsearch nodes and it seems to me based on his >>posts that he counts every node in his search so I was surprised to find out >>that he does not do it. >> >>I did not want to believe GCP that rybka does not count qsearch nodes because I >>assumed that Vasik knows more about rybka and I assume that he does not give >>misinformation but it seems that I was wrong and GCP was right. > >Happy new year! > >Now that you have made this step, it's time to start wondering if Rybka is >really doing something entirely different and new and has such a huge >evaluation, or if we should see Rybka as a Fruit-like engine but with some of >Fruit's weaknesses solved, and if it's really not doing anything really special. > >How much stronger do you think Fruit would get with a better kingsafety and a >better extension system, and some evaluation holes plugged? As strong as Rybka? I believe that fruit can be better than rybka1.2 when it is improved but of course it proves nothing because I also expect rybka to be improved. It seems to me that rybka also can be improved by a better kingsafety and a better extension system. > >And why is Rybka's endgame so spectacularly bad in some situtions (but fine in >others)? Is Vincents preprocessing theory correct? Was Vasik lazy regarding >those issues? I do not know the reason but I do not believe vincent's theory. I guess that the reason is that Vasik still did not write the relevant code. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.