Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Thanks for extracting this!

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.