Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:15:41 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 02:30:56, Chessfun wrote:
>On January 09, 2000 at 02:10:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 08, 2000 at 23:55:58, Chessfun wrote:
>I know, it's terrible isn't it. Last night was that CM6666 V CMJosh thing,
>plus my day and half debate with Michael Cummings. Then today I also just
>had to watch the Rebel Century game.
>Lucky It's free LOL :-)!!.
Lucky guy. I pay for every minute online.
>>The Genius programs are handicaped by their branching factor. Each new ply takes
>>a little bit more than a new ply on other modern programs.
>>
>>But they have a terrific pruning system in the last 3 or 4 plies of the search.
>>
>>That means that they perform very well until, say, ply 8 or 9. After that,
>>almost every modern program is able to go deeper in less time, which is a
>>terrible handicap for Genius.
>>
>This also likely explains how they have such a reputation at blitz.
That's right, but only blitz on computers slower than P100. Above that, I think
many programs are better than Genius, even in blitz.
>>I'm sure you can check this experimentaly by comparing time to depth for Genius
>>and, for example, Fritz or Rebel-Tiger. Compare the time needed to complete each
>>new ply, and notice that the ratio (time for ply N+1)/(time for ply N) is always
>>higher for Genius (in average).
>>
>>However I like the Genius programs a lot. Their evaluation function is one of
>>the best I have ever seen in term of stability. Maybe not the more accurate in
>>the absolute, but very homogenous. When Genius sees that it is 0.1 higher than
>>his opponent, it is going (generally) to keep this 0.1 until the endgame. When
>>it does not, it's because of lack of search depth. Genius then overlooks a
>>little trick, and to avoid losing more has to give back some of his positional
>>advantage.
>>
>I only just got it now, the interface is superb and the features are so easy to
>use, IMHO as good as Fritz 5.32's, I'm still getting familiar with Fritz 6 new
>interface.
>
>>In the endgame, his evaluation is simply unequaled until now. Modern programs
>>compensate by deeper search, but I'm not sure it's enough to equal Genius in the
>>endgame.
>>
>>I use the term "modern programs" because I think that Genius has not seriously
>>evolved since several years. Probably since 1995.
>>
>Seems that 5, 6 and 6.5 are all very much alike.
>There was that big toodoo last year when Genius 6 came out about the engine
>not being new and it would promissed to be upgraded. I am not sure if they ever
>did upgrade or not.
Genius is still such a legend that even without serious improvement people keep
on buying it.
Is it fair? On one hand you have people working hard to improve their programs,
and they end up with something MUCH better than Genius, on the other hand
somebody sells again and again the same old engine, forbidding the SSDF to test
it, of course.
>>>>>Genius 6 times are almost identical.
>haha that belongs above under the Genius 5 times. And they should be
>almost identical if they are the same engine.
You can slightly change some parameters here and there and get the same engine
to play slightly differently, sometimes the same move with a slightly different
time.
>>I'm a little bit surprised too...
>>
>>I think ply depth 15 does not mean the same thing in Tiger and in CM. Probably
>>CM does less pruning and sees more things at the same depth because it does much
>>more extensions? Just a guess, I don't have CM6000.
>>
>From what I see it means different things to all programs due to pruning.
That's right. Pruning, extensions, and what the programmer calls "ply" make it
difficult to compare.
Christophe
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.