Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Thanks for extracting this!

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.


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.