Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 14:08:34 02/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2006 at 10:16:29, Uri Blass wrote: >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 It's certainly not a rule, more of a trend. The more complex programs tend to do more stuff at the tips, while the simpler programs prefer to just "search through it". Vas
This page took 0 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.