Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Vasik Rajlich

Date: 14:06:26 02/15/06

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2006 at 12:08:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On February 15, 2006 at 10:04:28, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>
>>We need to keep our terminology straight.
>
><sigh>
>
>>
>>Chess knowledge (in the context of computer chess) is what makes a program play
>>well.
>
>Or worse! - This is one of your contributions I dont like. Rybka is allegedly
>good although with less chess knowledge. What makes a program play well is MORE
>than what you claim. The chess knowledge must be well applicated, this is one
>aspect. And then of course, you are always better if you have implemented a
>specific knowledge all others dont have yet. And this is the one aspect of
>Rybka's actual superiority, the other is something purely technical. Well that
>is what I have understood from Chrilly, Bob and others. If you could state
>something about that topic in time, before the secrets will be reveiled anyway,
>you would make a valuable message to all of us.
>

Imagine you show a position to two chess players.

The first, a low-rated player, takes twenty minutes to enumerate all sorts of
bugus and irrelevant nonsense about what might happen or what both sides should
do.

The second, an experienced, high-rated player, looks for half a minute and
simply says: "white should mobilize his pawn majority here".

Who gave the more knowledgeable assessment?

Vas

>
>
>>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.
>>
>>BTW - one (unfortunate) way to measure program complexity is:
>>
>>[program bugs or weird behaviors] * [program ELO]
>
>
>You know what is unfortunate? That you now begin to talk about other interesting
>programs but not your own. Not that that would be expected. Let's continue a bit
>longer and everybody will understand your method of obfuscating. ;)
>
>But anyway it's good to have you here. I like to read such messages. BTW I dont
>expect answers. I'm just analysing.
>
>
>>
>>Vas



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.