Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:17:07 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 1999 at 08:46:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 06, 1999 at 02:54:30, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 22:35:23, Michael Fuhrmann wrote: >> >>>Bob Hyatt stated in a recent post that all chess programs have "absolutely >>>glaring holes." What are the specific weaknesses of some of the top programs. >> >>In most cases it is their own king safety. > > >That is certainly a big one. should specify by program though. not all gms are the same, not all programs are the same. >Another is over-rating the attacking chances relative to the opponent's >king safety. IE many programs think that after Bxg3 hxg3 that white's >king is very unsafe, when in reality, it is not with a doubled pawn at >g3. Right, this problem is extreme by the following programs/systems: - deep thought - deep blue - deepviolet (at the iccserver, softwareversion PII-400 getting 22k nps) Not even gnuchess is having the f2g2g3 pattern detection as bad implemented as the above 3. >Passed pawns. Many over-value these, to the point that they will create an >advanced one that becomes lost laster. Others have no clue about the advantage Yes crafty even says 2 pawns at the third row are worth a rook not taking into account the king. Patzer seems giving a pawn at the 6th rank +3.0 or something anyway. Nimzo is very happy too with passed pawns. Basically it's tough to detect how well pawns are stopped, i bet all programs have to some extend big problems with this as the evaluation is so dependant upon just a few terms here. Every term is having a big impact on the evaluation of the position. >of an outside (or distant) passed pawn. An ancillary point here is that even >if a program recognizes a passed pawn as good (outside passed pawn) many don't >recognize a 'distant majority' which is essentially the same thing. I have >seen more than one program trade into a K+P vs K+P (multiple p's on both >sides) ending that was dead lost, even though they might have been a pawn >up or have a more advanced passer. Right, this might be a problem that will remain long time a problem. there are many factors and reevaluations to consider before you can apply to such a far majority a winning bonus. >Some value a rook on the 7th too highly, particularly after all the pawns have >advanced and the king is centralized. A rook on the 7th there isn't doing >anything, yet more than one program is very happy with it. a problem in diep is it wants to centralize king in endgame always. usual that's good but sometimes... >Some (including older versions of crafty) value connected passed pawns more >valuable than two isolated passed pawns... This is wrong in king and pawn (only) >endings... > >The list goes on and on... Right, however the biggest problem are closed positions. The problem with closed positions is that the rules are sometimes the opposite of normal positions.
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.