Author: J.Dufek
Date: 13:51:28 02/25/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2006 at 16:48:33, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Good luck with your statement. Maybe after more than 1 tournament few years ago /i am wrong?/ you get chance change you opinion. In reality this have to little with analysing /and playing/ CC games.
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.