Author: Paulo Cesar Soares
Date: 11:22:21 02/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2006 at 13:35:28, Stephen Ham wrote: >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 Hi, Steeve, I remember your games against computers. Please, what is IQP? Paulo Soares
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.