Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:48:33 02/25/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2006 at 16:39:39, J.Dufek wrote: >On February 25, 2006 at 16:02:47, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On February 25, 2006 at 09:32:15, William Penn wrote: >> >>>On February 25, 2006 at 01:37:12, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >>> >>>>CC is my interest in Rybka as published little way back. I run my programs >>>>against each other in infinate analysis. This takes a lot of time to get a idea >>>>of performance. What I am asking can anyone tell me of testing where Rybka and >>>>Fritz8 or 9 compare in, say 2 hours per move as for example. >>>> >>>>Thanks much >>>>Wayne >>> >>>I haven't heard of any ratings at such long time controls, but it might be >>>possible with a large number of people cooperating. Maybe it also could be done >>>wwith a good set of test positions. In the meantime we each try different >>>engines and then proceed based on instinct. >>> >>>I don't have Fritz 9 (no DVD player), but have compared the Rybka betas, Fruit >>>2.2.1, and Shredder 9. I believe Shredder has been left behind. Rybka or Fruit >>>are better. >>> >>>Fruit behaves better than Rybka and more predictably at long analysis times, >>>also produces lengthier analysis outputs. Rybka concatenates the moves to 1 pair >>>(2 half-moves) after several hours in infinite mode in most positions. Also it >>>is impossible to predict how long it will take between legs with Rybka. I call >>>them legs - the successive analysis lines output in the engine window. Fruit's >>>multiplier for successive legs tends to be about 2, and behaves fairly >>>predictably. Rybka's multiplier is more like 3, but variable, not easy to >>>predict; it might be 5 or more. For example you might have let the analysis go >>>for 2 hours, and wonder how long you'll have to wait til the next one decides to >>>burp itself out into the real world. With Rybka you might have to wait a long >>>time, 10-15 hours. With Fruit it's a pretty good bet that the next one will show >>>up in about 4 hours total run time. These are important considerations for CC >>>players. I'm sure most CC players understand this kind of thinking, others may >>>not. >>> >>>My conclusion at this point is that Rybka is useful at intermediate infinite >>>analyis times, say 30 minutes to 2 hours. At longer run times it's too >>>unpredictable and often drives me crazy waiting. So I tend to prefer Fruit if >>>I'm going to let the analysis run over 2 hours, but I go in cycles. Currently >>>I'm in an upcycle that favors Rybka, tomorrow it may be Fruit again. Obviously I >>>don't really know anything, everything is just hunches... :) >>>WP >> >>Very interesting, Thank you >>Wayne > >OK. Once more. Infinite analysis is only _SMALL PART_ CC games. Not correct. Most computer time that I use for CC is done in infinite analysis. Ignoring this >fact you cannot go up with results and ELO. Fruit's playing style is not very >suitable for sharp CC games. Rybka in this moment /short analysis line/ is >useless for CC. Not correct. There are positions that every chess program does not understand but fruit's playing style is no problem. Rybka short lines are not useless for CC because even short line can give you a hint which move to investigate later. I agree that it is frustrating to see one move that rybka choose with no explanation for the reason but it is better than nothing. Uri
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.