Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: knowledge and blitz; search and long games

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 07:16:29 02/15/06

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2006 at 10:04:28, Vasik Rajlich wrote:

>On February 15, 2006 at 03:07:50, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:
>
>>I have a naive question...
>>
>>in my understanding, Fruit has excellent search efficiency but not huge amounts
>>of knowledge. In contrast, Fritz 9 and Rybka have substantial knowledge. If you
>>can trust Rybka's depth outputs, it does not seem to be as quick at getting to
>>deeper plys.
>>
>>I have observed that Fruit 2.2.1 tends to play poorly at blitz and improve
>>steadly with long time controls, with it being an absolute god on the longest
>>time controls (SSDF). In contrast, both rybka and fritz 9 play blitz well.
>>
>>do programs with more knowledge tend to play blitz better? Knowledge is kind of
>>a quick, heuristic way of making a decision about what is likely to work. It
>>presumably can come into play very quickly. In contrast, search takes time.
>>However, it does discover when the knowledge is not useful (i.e., when the
>>knowledge heuristic is inconsistent with the concrete variations uncovered by
>>search; e.g., doubled pawns may generally be bad (knowledge heuristic), but in
>>some situations can be quite good)
>>
>>is my reasoning correct? Maybe it would help for me to understand what
>>constitutes "knowledge" in a chess program. I always presume its things like
>>"doubled pawns are often bad" or two bishops are good, or it is often good to
>>push pawns and have space..
>>
>>
>>best
>>Joseph
>
>We need to keep our terminology straight.
>
>Chess knowledge (in the context of computer chess) is what makes a program play
>well. At standard time controls, Fruit probably has a tiny bit more chess
>knowledge than Fritz and Hiarcs.
>
>You can also talk about the complexity of a chess program. Hiarcs is probably
>the most complex of the above three, and Fruit the simplest. Shredder is another
>complex program. I suspect that the more complex programs are better at faster
>time controls.

I do not think that you are right here because fruit1.0 was relatively better at
faster time control and it was not a complex program.

better order of moves can make the program better at slower time control and
better order of moves may be a result of complex algorithm to sort the moves.

Uri



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.