Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:52:31 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 14:17:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 02, 2006 at 04:34:05, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On January 02, 2006 at 03:11:49, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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! >>>> >> >>Happy new year from me :) >> >>>>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. >>> >> >>Yes, I am sure that Fruit 3.0 and Fruit 4.0 will show that Fabien's approach is >>nowhere near an end. >> >>>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? >>> >> >>Ok, not talking about Rybka of course, as I wouldn't like to rob you of the joy >>of figuring this out :), just about pre-processing in general: >> >>1) I am not sure why a preprocessor would play especially badly in the endgame. > >This is why i predicted your beta version will be for a long period of time >probably the relative to the competition strongest Rybka version. > >Rybka has very little chessknowledge inside in comparision to Diep and Shredder, >so if you start to code a lot, you will encounter the same problems we had. I can only quote the readme of Rybka Aims: Rybka aims to have a fully knowledgeable evaluation function. This term however has taken some abuse recently, so let me make something clear: chess knowledge wins chess games. If it doesn't, it isn't knowledge. I agree with that definition. The fact that rybka win against shredder proves that rybka has more knowledge. Shredder may have more of something else but not more knowledge. > >>2) Amir has explained (you can find this in the archives) that Junior started as >>a preprocessor, but the last traces of its pre-processing were removed around >>'99 or so. > >You confuse Amir with Frans Morsch. No Franz never post in this forum so you can find nothing of franz in the archives. Uri
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.