Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Thanks for extracting this!

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 12:11:08 01/02/06

Go up one level in this thread

On January 02, 2006 at 14:52:31, Uri Blass wrote:

>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.

Please quantify that Vasiks statement implies he has as much as Shredder or
Diep. I see no claim that he claims he has more than Diep for example.

So i see nowhere Vasik do a wrong or inaccurate claim here. The illusion he
gives might be wrong though. Yet don't let you fool yourself by illusionists.

I remember a conversation with a spanish programming team 1999 in world champs
1999. They claimed their program had a lot of chessknowledge.

Their eval was not much bigger in terms of code than what Fruit has now :)

A claim that you have a 'big eval' doesn't mean it is a 'big eval' in my eyes.

Claiming you have a 'big eval' has not a single relation to other chess
software. I remember the bitboard program Cilkchess from Don Daily. That was
from MIT. If Vasik, also coming from MiT, that his program has a 'big eval' in
comparision to cilkchess, then i'm sure he is doing a 100% correct claim :)

In my eyes what rybka doing is very basic. Like fruit's eval + simple kingsafety
+ very little more than that, but real well tuned.

In my definition that is not much. That's real simple stuff.

I have positions tested here where Diep and Shredder are directly like +1.0
there for positional reasons. Even Fritz is happy (possibly for mobility
reasons) at nearly 1.0, meanwhile Rybka+Fruit are more like +0.4, as their eval
says nothing.

>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.

Show your proof of your statement here.

I have counter proof however already in advance. Fruit also beats Shredder and
Fruit has real little knowledge. Diep 1995 had 10 times more than Fruit already.

>>>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.
>Franz never post in this forum so you can find nothing of franz in the archives.

Please do NOT misspell his name. Franz is a GERMAN/Austrian spelling,
however his name is FRANS MORSCH.

Frans is very intelligent to not post here and go into discussion with crazy
guys. I again lost time here for nothing, usually i skip your postings saving me
time. This is why showing up at dutch champs or world champs is a cool way to
get into contact with authors of other programs. As you can really speak with

But of course you have forgotten this, there is other media to speak to people.
Voice, Phone, Skype, Fax, Email, Chat managers.



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.