Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:55:59 01/29/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2006 at 10:03:02, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 29, 2006 at 07:12:15, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>Reminds me of Deep Thought -- using the hardware for the last N plies. This >>type of tactical search works real efficiently to see danger from your opponent >>but less efficient in finding chances for itself (ex: Genius.) Tactically it >>makes it very strong but not so efficient in king attacks compared to Fritz or >>Hiarcs. Hence, on test positions it does slightly worse (just like Fruit.) > >Would that really be the reason? As you probably know, one can significantly >improve its ability with test suites, by simply increasing the 'Optimism' in the >outlook. > > Albert Only on test suites that you need to fail high to find the move and not in test suite that you need to fail low. I think that a poosible test to test positional understanding is the following test: 1)Use unequal time control so the result of both programs is 50% 2)Take all the games when there is disagreement between the programs about the question which side is better(both programs evaluates the position as at least 0.25 pawns advantage for itself for at least 3 consecutive moves). 3)calculate the result in the relevant games The program that score better in the games probably has a better positional understanding. 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.