 |
|
 Chess variants (10x8)Sam has closed his piano and gone to bed ... now we can talk about the real stuff of life ... love, liberty and games such as Janus, Capablanca Random, Embassy Chess & the odd mention of other 10x8 variants is welcome too For posting: - invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or for particular games: Janus; Capablanca Random; or Embassy) - information about upcoming tournaments - disussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted while that particular game is in progress) - links to interesting related sites (non-promotional) You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
31. March 2006, 18:58:30 Subject: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Modified by Walter Montego (31. March 2006, 19:01:30)  One thing that is missing from this discussion is the way SMIRF thinks up its moves. It plays without an opening book. I'm thinking it is equally strong in Embassy, Capablanca, Capablanca Random, Bird's, and Gothic Chess. Can the same be said for the other programs that only play one version? Does the Vortex program or those others listed play Embassy Chess or Capablanca Random Chess? The random set up version is the one that forces the computers to play without as strong of a opening book or none at all. I can see Embassy Chess eventually having an opening book if only because I'm gradually teaching myself which things to do in the opening when playing it. I'm sure others that have taken up Embassy Chess and playing it regularly are doing the same thing even if they're not taking notes or writing a computer program. You still keep things in your mind as to how it went in the opening and either try to repeat it, or if it went poorly the last time to make changes or avoid it.
Can the Vortex's or the other programs' opening book be shut off when play Gothic Chess? If so, can they still defeat SMIRF as you guys say it can? Can Vortex or the other programs' play Capablanca Random Chess? If so, how do they fare against SMIRF? If they can't do either of these things, the programs really aren't too easily comparable, though obviously the results from Gothic Chess matches are still valid for comparing how the programs play that one version. 31. March 2006, 19:12:23 Subject: Re: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Walter Montego: Ed Trice actually is coquetting with his huge tables and a 64 Bit multiprocessor engine. He must have seen a real necessity to pimp up his Gothic Vortex program. The truth is, SMIRF's engine actually measures only 60 KB and Gothic Vortex's persistant data probably about 10 GB or more. That is as if in a battle one SMIRF soldier has to face about 175,000 Vortex enemies, additional CPU difference still ignored. So there must have been a tremendeous panic after being beaten one single time by SMIRF. 31. March 2006, 19:55:34 Subject: Re: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Modified by Walter Montego (31. March 2006, 19:57:17) SMIRF Engine: Those size differences are truly amazing! I have always wondered why you didn't add an opening book, but I like the fact that you didn't. It plays as I do, just winging it every move. Perhaps this is why it doesn't do well in the speed and blitz matches against other programs? Those machines don't really think up their moves in the opening, they just look up the position in a book and play the recommended move. That, to me, isn't thinking. It is impressive data retrival, but it ain't thinking.
How does SMIRF do in 15 minutes for each side games? How about tournament timed games, like 40 moves in 2 or 3 hours? How about over the internet like how SMIRF plays against me? 31. March 2006, 20:41:54 Subject: Re: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Modified by Chicago Bulls (31. March 2006, 20:44:21) Walter Montego: .
. . Those size differences are truly amazing! Actually they aren't! All these GB huge data are endgame tablebases..... I have always wondered why you didn't add an opening book, but I like the fact that you didn't. I don't like the fact that he didn't, since he could add an opening book with an option to use it or not.... It plays as I do, just winging it every move. Perhaps this is why it doesn't do well in the speed and blitz matches against other programs? Nope. This is not the reason! Some programs just can't do good at blitz games. For example Chess System Tal 2 was like its author said not capable of playing blitz Chess and the program needed some time to play decent.... Here is a quote from its author: "Chess System Tal II is a knowledge based program. It packs many chess ideas into its evaluation function. It helps to give it some time to work up its ideas. The longer the time control the better. CSTal II is not designed to play fast chess against other programs. It is designed to play chess against other chess players (eg humans). You can watch CSTal play, see its ideas, observe the positional and sacrifical algorithms and learn new concepts from it. Playing endless automated games against other materialistic programs is not recommended for the sake of your own sanity and the development of your own brain. Please get a tank of fish instead. " 31. March 2006, 21:02:54 Subject: Re: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Pythagoras: You're wrong if you don't think that's amazing to have such a big difference. Take those data bases away from the those machines and get the program down to SMIRF's size. Which machine is going to win?
How do you know that's not the reason? I was just speculating as to why it doesn't seem to play blitz games well, but you say it as if you're an authority on it. This other program is not SMIRF, so why should it's weakness in blitz games have anything to do with SMIRF's? It the author's note telling you that SMIRF works in the identical manner? 31. March 2006, 21:16:08 Subject: Re: Machines that play Gothic Chess as compared to other Bird's Chess variants set ups Modified by SMIRF Engine (31. March 2006, 21:18:35) Pythagoras: Personally I think, that huge engame tablebases would not significantly decide the outcome of a game. Maybe 0.1% of all games could benefit. But to demonstrately use them is an indicator of panic.
Contrary to that big opening books normaly have a huge influence on chess games. But listen, it is very important to first develop a kind of intelligent playing program, relying on its own. Chess knowlegde should be the (timely) last thing to be added to a chess engine. SMIRF is not at all in a final development stage. Thus it would be much too early to implement such moves. Programs, which play badly without opening books, have been "completed" too early. Actually I have an idea, where the difference in SMIRF's playing strength concerning 8x8 and 10x8 could be caused. It has to do with the method I reuse cached data in SMIRF. So I have some ideas how to improve SMIRF one more time - so I hope. |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |