Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:32:11 02/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2006 at 14:22:21, Paulo Cesar Soares wrote: >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 I think it is an isolated queen pawn(d4). 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.