Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 15:31:27 02/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2006 at 14:32:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Thanks, Uri. That's correct. IQP is standard English speaking chess jargon for an Isolated Queen Pawn. Since this is an international message board, I probably should have been more thoughtful and spelled the words out. 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.