Author: Ryan B.
Date: 17:32:17 02/10/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2006 at 19:59:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 10, 2006 at 19:41:09, Ryan B. wrote: > >>On February 10, 2006 at 08:17:34, Steve Maughan wrote: >> >>>Uri, >>> >>>A classic 'Uri' post on your part :-) >>> >>>>We do not know if the evaluation of rybka is more complex than fruit's >>>>evaluation so I disagree that rybka pulls us in the other direction. >>> >>>Of course we don't - we don't have access to the source. But looking at it's >>>play it certainly seems to have a sophisticated evaluation function. I would >>>say that my original statement is in line with perceived wisdom. >>> >> >> >>I am 100% confident that Rybka's eval is small, well tuned, and mobility based. >>The perceived knowledge is due to not having bad or incorrect chess knowledge >>and out searching its opponents. > >What about pablo's observation that Rybka is better than other engines in >destoying the stonewall > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?485102 > >Do you think that the reason is search and not evaluation? > >Uri Yes, the almost no knowledge tactical search added to the end of the search line would neglect the stone wall recog anyway. Rybka is searching deeper in the important lines faster therefore by search realizing the need to capture pawns sooner. Another thing to consider is that Rybka searches captures deeper than non captures and uses what looks like heavy use of razoring. Ryan
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.