Author: Walter Faxon
Date: 18:30:37 12/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 03:42:44, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On December 15, 2005 at 16:15:06, Andrew Wagner wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 16:07:10, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>Recently two programs came upon the scene and astonished many >>>with their great results. >>> >>>Why do you think they do better, specifically? >> >>A very good question. If I were able to ask Vasik one question, which I doubt he >>would have time to answer at the moment, it would be whether he did anything >>radically different (different heuristic(s), algorithms, etc.), or if he just >>did what everyone else is doing, better than they did it. > >Andy, > >I will just end up teasing you by answering this. :) > >As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework. A >lot of things that have been dismissed by "computer chess practice" can in fact >work. > >In addition, there is vast room for further improvement. If I could get a team >of let's say four smart people to work for four years full time (and this of >course won't happen), the engine could be improved by probably 500 rating >points. > >Vas PB* ? CNS ? Monkeys and darts ? -W:)ter
This page took 0.01 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.