Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 10:35:28 02/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2006 at 13:14:31, Salvador H Cresce wrote: >On February 28, 2006 at 12:54:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 28, 2006 at 11:09:32, Majd Al-Ansari wrote: >> >>>Letting Rybka use an optimized book is almost not fair for other programs. >> >>Rybka cannot use that book not under chessbase so I consider it as not part of >>rybka'a package. >> >>I think that the ssdf should not use it in their testing of rybka when they test >>rybka because they should test commercial products and the combination between >>.ctg book and rybka is combination of 2 commercial products. >> >>I am lucky to have Fritz8 and Junior9 as chessbase engines but I simply do not >>care about book today and I am not going to use it. >> >><snipped> >>> Rybka was already beating any engine with its own native book very >>>handily, so now I guess things will really get ugly. They might get even uglier >>>once the last few weaknesses of Rybka are covered (endgame knowledge). >> >>You are wrong if you think that lack of some endgame knowledge is the only >>weakness of Rybka. >> >>based on my experience in correspondence games it has more weaknesses. >> >>Uri > >What are the weaknesses you found on correspondence games? Where do you play >correspondence games? I play on ICCF. > >Salvador Dear readers, I agree with Uri. Before I go further, I should mention that that my analyses of Rybka's performances have generally been at very long time controls, in tournaments and matches against other engines. Yes, I'm a correspondence chess player too, but don't use Rybka to generate moves. I have been using it though to analyze completed game and positions that have already occurred. I do the latter partly for my own benefit, but primarily to test the engines against positions that I think I comprehend very well, having studied it/them for hours. Long story short, Rybka did complete a tournament run at relatively fast controls (e.g. 45/40, 25/40, 10/game), partly to compare its results versus those at very long time controls (e.g. 240/40, 120/40, 60/game, etc). In this specific tournament versus Junior 9, Shredder 9, Fruit 2.2.1, and the top Toga, Rybka scored about 50%. Yes, there was too little data. But, I saw specific evidence of need for improvement in certain areas, which I also saw at long time-controls. So, I forwarded the games to Vaz with some general comments, to which he responded with agreement. One problem that I've seen repeatedly is Rybka doesn't know how to deal with IQP positions. It's unable to determine when IQPs are an asset or a liability, and it apparently has no "knowledge" how to use an IQP for advantage, nor how to attack it. It's my opinion that engines in general struggle here, but Rybka seems to perform worse than others on this specific issue. And, there are a few other issues too, which I also showed to Vaz. Still, count me as a huge Rybka supporter and fan. While the engine still has a lot of room for improvement, it's the strongest on the market. All the best, Steve
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.