Author: blass uri
Date: 02:57:53 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 18:31:16, James T. Walker wrote: >On April 30, 1999 at 12:03:21, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On April 30, 1999 at 11:37:23, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>>Food for thought. Which programs are considered by most people as simply fast >>>searchers and which are Knowledge based? >>>Examples? >>>"Fast searchers" >>>Fritz >>>Junior >>>Nimzo >>> >>>"Knowledge based" >>>? >>> >>>I think many claim to be in between. CM6K,Hiarcs,MchessPro? >>> >>>I would like some opinions and why. >>>Jim Walker >> >>I think that no program of today should be called knowledge based. >> >>I looked at the evaluation of hiarcs7 and chessmaster6000 in one game that they >>drew. >>Chessmaster had KBPP against KR but could not make a progress. >>Both programs evaluated the position as a clear advantage for the KBPP. >> >>It is clear to humans that the position is a draw not because of some static >>evaluation function but because the pawns can do no progress. >> >>A program that cannot understand thess simple things that humans understand is >>not deserved to be called a knowledge based program. >> >>Uri > >Hello Uri, >I'm not sure I follow your logic. You seem to be saying based on one position >again that a program can not be knowledge based if it does not understand this >one position. What about all the other positions that it does understand? I am interested mainly in the simple positions because I understand these positions better than the middle game positions. The one position is only one example. I looked at games of Hiarcs7 from the ssdf and they gave in some games evaluations of hiarcs7. I found that fast searchers have often better positional understanding relative to hiarcs7(of course there are also many cases when Hiarcs7 has better positional understanding). It is not clear that slow searchers have better positional understanding. The main reason that I consider not to use Junior in my correspondence games is not the fact that Junior is a fast searcher but some tactical problems of Junior. >Also, you seem to be putting Hiarcs in the "Knowledge based" program category >and then saying that it can't be knowledge based because of the one position. >Why did you pick Hiarcs to begin with. Some people may say that it is only one >of the "Middle of the road" programs that is a mixture of knowledge and search >speed. But what about a program that searches only 200 nps but plays 2100 level >chess? Is this probably a knowledge based engine? What if it still can't >understand the one position you mention? The speed of 200 nps would not qualify >it as a "Fast searcher". What if you take this same program and increase it's >speed to get 6000nps and now it's playing 2600 chess? What will make it a >"Knowledge based" program? The nps is not clear. For example it is not clear if you count also illegal moves in the nps. I also do not think that we can learn for the nps if the program is knowledge based because a slow searcher may be slow because the programmer did not find the right tricks to do it fast. 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.