Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 03:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2

Hi,

I purchased Fritz 10 and Rybka 2.2.

Rybka keeps beating Fritz 10 and I thought that Fritz 10 was suppose to be
the strongest software program. Is there a setting in Fritz 10 to make it
play stronger or is it just that Rybka 2.2 is stronger?

Any help would be appreicated.

Paul


  #2   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 03:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 178
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2


"Paul" schreef in bericht
...
Hi,

I purchased Fritz 10 and Rybka 2.2.

Rybka keeps beating Fritz 10 and I thought that Fritz 10 was suppose to be
the strongest software program. Is there a setting in Fritz 10 to make it
play stronger or is it just that Rybka 2.2 is stronger?

Any help would be appreicated.

Paul


Rybka is simply the strongest engine around now, according to pure playing
strength.
Fritz 10 however has some advanced training- and analysis-functions, which
make it the best for learning, getting a better chessplayer overall.
Chessbase, the company that distributes the Fritz-software, tends to
emphasize this, ever since other programmers have managed to beat their
engines.
Maybe that's what causes the confusion.

Rating list.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_1...rangliste.html
Rybka 2.2 is even stronger than 2.1

Greetings from Ruud.


  #3   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 04:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2

Thanks Ruud. Even though I have Rybka 2.2 x32bit rather than x64, it still
takes Fritz 10 apart. Is there any tweeking that can be done in Fritz 10 to
make it a bit stronger. Do you know why Chessbase does not fight back to
make their products the strongest. I would have thought this would be a good
selling point.

Regards

Paul


"Ruud" wrote in message
...

"Paul" schreef in bericht
...
Hi,

I purchased Fritz 10 and Rybka 2.2.

Rybka keeps beating Fritz 10 and I thought that Fritz 10 was suppose to
be the strongest software program. Is there a setting in Fritz 10 to make
it play stronger or is it just that Rybka 2.2 is stronger?

Any help would be appreicated.

Paul


Rybka is simply the strongest engine around now, according to pure playing
strength.
Fritz 10 however has some advanced training- and analysis-functions, which
make it the best for learning, getting a better chessplayer overall.
Chessbase, the company that distributes the Fritz-software, tends to
emphasize this, ever since other programmers have managed to beat their
engines.
Maybe that's what causes the confusion.

Rating list.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_1...rangliste.html
Rybka 2.2 is even stronger than 2.1

Greetings from Ruud.



  #4   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 06:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 178
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2


"Paul" schreef in bericht
...
Thanks Ruud. Even though I have Rybka 2.2 x32bit rather than x64, it still
takes Fritz 10 apart. Is there any tweeking that can be done in Fritz 10
to make it a bit stronger.


You could experiment with the engine-parameters, but the default-settings
are usually the best.

Do you know why Chessbase does not fight back to make their products the
strongest.


I'm pretty sure they are.
It's just that nowadays there are better chess-programmers out there.
In the beginning of the 90s there were Fritz, Rebel, and some others, that
dominated.
Now Shredder, Fruit, Zappa, and now Rybka, have overtaken the Fritz of the
90s.


I would have thought this would be a good selling point.


If they are again the top, I'm sure that it would become the main point of
advertizing again.
Still, the interface of Chessbase is still inviting to programmers and
players, so they're ok, I think.


  #5   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 08:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 60
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2


Ruud wrote:
"Paul" schreef in bericht
...
Thanks Ruud. Even though I have Rybka 2.2 x32bit rather than x64, it still
takes Fritz 10 apart. Is there any tweeking that can be done in Fritz 10
to make it a bit stronger.


You could experiment with the engine-parameters, but the default-settings
are usually the best.

Do you know why Chessbase does not fight back to make their products the
strongest.


I'm pretty sure they are.
It's just that nowadays there are better chess-programmers out there.
In the beginning of the 90s there were Fritz, Rebel, and some others, that
dominated.
Now Shredder, Fruit, Zappa, and now Rybka, have overtaken the Fritz of the
90s.


I would have thought this would be a good selling point.


If they are again the top, I'm sure that it would become the main point of
advertizing again.
Still, the interface of Chessbase is still inviting to programmers and
players, so they're ok, I think.


Does Rybka have a function to turn off tablebases? Can't you get that
program from Chessville.com?



  #6   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 09:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2

Rob Mitchell wrote:
Does Rybka have a function to turn off tablebases?


Early versions of Rybka didn't even have a function to turn on
tablebases! :-)

But you should be able to turn off tablebases for any engine just by
moving the files and not telling it where they are. Most engines
should cope with that.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Technicolor Gnome (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a smiling garden ornament
but it's in realistic colour and you
can never put it down!
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 21st 06, 10:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,980
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2


David Richerby wrote:
Rob Mitchell wrote:
Does Rybka have a function to turn off tablebases?


Early versions of Rybka didn't even have a function to turn on
tablebases! :-)

But you should be able to turn off tablebases for any engine just by
moving the files and not telling it where they are. Most engines
should cope with that.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Technicolor Gnome (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a smiling garden ornament
but it's in realistic colour and you
can never put it down!


Thanks David!

  #8   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 03:18 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2005
Posts: 11
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2


Rybka is very strong, but it plays more positionally than most other
engines. One possibility for improvement might be to run a tactical
version of Rybka, such as Rybka WinFinder, on one machine, and a
positional version of Rybka on another machine.

Tactical positions and strategic positions seem to have different
characteristics, so it might be more efficient to have 2 different
programs running at the same time, one program based on the premise
that there are no tactical shots in the positions it looks at, and that
the problem is to choose between several good positional moves, and the
other program based on the premise that there is a unique best tactical
shot in the positions it looks at, and focused on trying to find it.

Then if the tactical program does find a position where there is a
unique best tactical move, write the evaluation of that position into
the other program's hash table or something like that. So the
positional program wouldn't have to analyze that position, but could
just use the value given to it by the tactical program.

Using the Nalimov tablebases a lot, I find that tactical positions are
more likely to have a unique best move than ordinary positions. Of
course sometimes there are several equally good moves, such as when the
winning idea is to move a rook along the 7th rank from A7 to H7,G7, or
F7 which are all equally good. But there is often basically a single
best idea.

So a tactical program might be basically looking for a unique best move
or set of moves that are markedly better than the alternatives, whereas
a positional program might be focused on finding subtle differences
between several moves that look almost equally good at first. So it
might be better to seperate the two tasks and give them to 2 seperate
programs to try and solve, rather than having a single algorithm trying
to solve two such different problems at the same time.

Hope that makes sense :-)

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 14th 07, 10:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,999
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2

Which one won ?

Have you had those two play Shredder or Hercules ? That would be
two good games.

  #10   Report Post  
Old January 15th 07, 08:24 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 10
Default Fritz 10 vs Rybka 2.2

wrote:
Rybka is very strong, but it plays more positionally than most other
engines. One possibility for improvement might be to run a tactical
version of Rybka, such as Rybka WinFinder, on one machine, and a
positional version of Rybka on another machine.

Tactical positions and strategic positions seem to have different
characteristics, so it might be more efficient to have 2 different
programs running at the same time, one program based on the premise
that there are no tactical shots in the positions it looks at, and that
the problem is to choose between several good positional moves, and the
other program based on the premise that there is a unique best tactical
shot in the positions it looks at, and focused on trying to find it.

Then if the tactical program does find a position where there is a
unique best tactical move, write the evaluation of that position into
the other program's hash table or something like that. So the
positional program wouldn't have to analyze that position, but could
just use the value given to it by the tactical program.

Using the Nalimov tablebases a lot, I find that tactical positions are
more likely to have a unique best move than ordinary positions. Of
course sometimes there are several equally good moves, such as when the
winning idea is to move a rook along the 7th rank from A7 to H7,G7, or
F7 which are all equally good. But there is often basically a single
best idea.

So a tactical program might be basically looking for a unique best move
or set of moves that are markedly better than the alternatives, whereas
a positional program might be focused on finding subtle differences
between several moves that look almost equally good at first. So it
might be better to seperate the two tasks and give them to 2 seperate
programs to try and solve, rather than having a single algorithm trying
to solve two such different problems at the same time.

Hope that makes sense :-)

Made sense, but is almost nonsensical. But don't take that too badly.
It is just a misunderstanding of reality.

First the dual position question. The whole strategic vs tactical
question. This is wrong for a few reasons, any one of the reasons
enough to not warrant anything past the discussion. But lets try one of
the easiest. First, there is no chess engine on earth, rybka included
that is going around NOT looking at tactics. This is the number one,
best thing they are good about. Move pieces around, capture stuff, see
if we are still in forcing sequences, if so, who has the most material,
and are there any gross imbalances in the position? Is it enough to
win? Many programs stop paying attention after a win has been demonstrated.

Essentially there is no engine that really "plays" tactics better than
another engine. There was an age when there were deeper engines than
another, but we are beyond that age (except for Hydra, and probably deep
blue. But they may not have been deep enough for the likes of rybka,
and brethren. We will see).

The other way to look at the question is that there is either a
fundamentally "best" move, but we have no way to test that, or we have
moves that are better against a given opponent, and we do that already.
All the time in the CPU vs CPU realm. As a matter of fact that was
one of the complaints were that the games were getting to specifically
opponent oriented, and that accept for SSDF standings, the chess wasn't
necessarily getting "better" especially against the other test subjects,
GM's, Super-GM's and world champions.

At the end of the day, all the "meat" in a chess program is in the quiet
areas. Where ideas will portend tactics someday. And those that best
perform here, are the best at winning.

The interesting thing is when the machines change how we think about
certaing positons or tableux. This has happened as recently as the
Kramnik v. Fritz 10 match, but I don't know how much more we (the
general public), will get to see of this kind of new thinking, and how
much will be just so much verbage in the pile of machine v. machine
games that will be happening. I do believe that desktop class machines
are in a new race to be much stronger. And it isn't clever programming
like you have shown, it is going to be in just adding ever more bits of
smarts in the program. But we will tend to only see this in the
standings. Us patzers won't be able to see or understand anything
profound happening. Those that would, aren't going to be looking. They
will be off doing tourneys and stuff. But it may seep in during
training, we will see.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fritz 10 vs Rybka Jason911 rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 December 5th 06 08:11 AM
Fritz 10 FRC option is greedy. Won't allow other FRC engines. DorothyFan1 rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 December 1st 06 03:05 AM
is there any doubt which chess engine is the strongest in the world.... mate-in-30 rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 8 January 26th 06 11:10 AM
Strongest program C.C.LONGTHORP rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 37 December 19th 05 07:21 PM
Fritz 9 - Interface problems RocketMan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 4 November 10th 05 04:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017