Don wrote:I can put this another way. I DO believe our evaluation function is one of the best and possibly the best. I do not feel nearly as confident about the search. It's just a belief that I cannot back up nor can I construct any test to prove it and I agree that it's difficult to even define in formal terms but I have no reason to make an issue out of this either way. In either case I would be admitting that something could be better and a lot of people want Komodo to be better at tactics. So I don't understand why you think that claiming Komodo's tactics is not up to par is marketing hype. Would you put something like that on your site? Would you say, "Get Houdini now! Tactics not quite up to par - but it does other stuff really well." ????
So it really escapes me how this can be interpreted as some sort of sales pitch.
It really escapes you that claiming to have the "best positional engine" can be interpreted as a sales pitch?
That's funny.
Don wrote:I can put this another way. I DO believe our evaluation function is one of the best and possibly the best. I do not feel nearly as confident about the search. It's just a belief that I cannot back up nor can I construct any test to prove it and I agree that it's difficult to even define in formal terms but I have no reason to make an issue out of this either way. In either case I would be admitting that something could be better and a lot of people want Komodo to be better at tactics. So I don't understand why you think that claiming Komodo's tactics is not up to par is marketing hype. Would you put something like that on your site? Would you say, "Get Houdini now! Tactics not quite up to par - but it does other stuff really well." ????
So it really escapes me how this can be interpreted as some sort of sales pitch.
It really escapes you that claiming to have the "best positional engine" can be interpreted as a sales pitch?
That's funny.
My comments were in response to Vincent's demeaning series of posts about Komodo's evaluation - not a sales pitch.
You would do yourself a favor to keep a low profile.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
chrisw wrote: Yes, I have indeed been on about "heavy eval" for years. Curious now how my "heavy eval" from early 1990s is the basis of Fruit. I think you use it too now.
On GM play, the sad truth is that you have no idea.
Fruit? Heavy Eval?
Chris did not say the Fruit eval is heavy.
You need to stop using whatever recreational drugs/beverages you are using. Fruit is typical bean-counter fast. You will find zero tactical analysis in Fruit's eval, nor in mine. Everything is designed for speed in BOTH. Hence the NPS numbers they produce.
As far as GM play goes, you might try talking to Dzhindi a bit to see what I do/don't know... One never stops learning.
Don wrote:I can put this another way. I DO believe our evaluation function is one of the best and possibly the best.
"The best" relative to what... How do you compare the strength of two evaluation functions of two different engines?
I think that there is one case when it is possible to say that one evaluation is superior.
If engine A replace the evaluation to an evaluation that is semantically equivalent to the evaluation of engine B and get better results
inspite of not getting more nodes per seconds
then it is possible to say that B has a superior evaluation.
Don wrote:I have written many time that I BELIEVE we have the best positional program in the world.
lkaufman wrote:
If we miss tactics but have the same rating as another engine, we must be better at positional play, what else is there?
Then how do you explain Komodo's relatively weaker results with the Strategic Test Suite?
That is a nice test, but I'm not sure it proves anything. We cannot be weaker positional and tactically and yet still be so strong so Komodo must be doing something right. I think that perhaps Komodo just doesn't test well on any sort of problem set and I don't have an explanation of why.
Do you?
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
Don wrote:I have written many time that I BELIEVE we have the best positional program in the world.
lkaufman wrote:
If we miss tactics but have the same rating as another engine, we must be better at positional play, what else is there?
Then how do you explain Komodo's relatively weaker results with the Strategic Test Suite?
That is a nice test, but I'm not sure it proves anything. We cannot be weaker positional and tactically and yet still be so strong so Komodo must be doing something right. I think that perhaps Komodo just doesn't test well on any sort of problem set and I don't have an explanation of why.
Do you?
I do. Other program authors optimize parameters using problem sets and we do not, so we always look worse by comparison on those sets.
Rebel wrote:Quite funny you think Diep would win such a match, I would put my money on Komodo. One requirement of a top-engine programmer is accuracy and punctuality. I see that in Don's postings, I don't see that quality in Vincent's postings. I think it matters.
Agreed!
Vincent regularly complains about the complexity (== bugs) and mis-tuned weights of his evaluation function.
Komodo has fought its way to the top with a methodical approach, so should be relatively bug-free.
My money would also be on Komodo, even with possible tactical handicap.
Come on, let's all agree that such a match proves nothing, and do it.
I have no idea why they didn't take the 1 ply challenge.
