|Advancement in the Development of Analysis||31||58%|
At what point does a chess engine with a superior development in analysis out weigh the demand for a superior development in elo strength?
Do we tend to value one over and above the other - if not by expectation alone- when we are looking at and for strictly elo gain? Or, is elo gain alone the true measure of a chess engines worth when it comes to top seed chess engines?
I'm just posing the questions here! That is the purpose of the poll.
Perhaps this is something even developers might want to look at?! I'm not sure if this would be antithetical to playchess enthusiasts.
For instance - you stated Houdini lacked in analysis compared to Rybka - yet Rybka lacks in comparison elo!
> you stated Houdini lacked in analysis compared to Rybka - yet Rybka lacks in comparison elo!
> i believe the two go together.
With exceptions, like Stockfish that I failed to use for analysis until the community built the Gran2 series version that worked better for analysis (despite lower elo) so that I recommend Stockfish 2.11 PA GTB Gran2 over latest Stockfish from the developers, even though the latter has higher elo.
Another example is Critter Session File that is able to store analysis (learning), and I think it's much more useful that it would be if say, instead of Session File, it was 40 elo stronger. Until recently Rybka 3 was my favorite Rybka, thanks to being able to save analysis via Persistent Hash, as I think having a strong engine around to store analysis is very important, mainly in missed transpositions by an analysis file, and because other engines forget. This role has now been overtaken by Critter 1.4, which has finally obsoleted Rybka 3, something I think is a much more important event than by how much elo Houdini 2 surpasses Rybka 4.
I would suggest that in the commercial realm their is a potential for consumers to buy the analytically stronger chess engine over the chess engine that shows elo gain but is lacking in superior analysis.
Perhaps what will separate the amateur programmers from the pro's will be those that are capable of developing a chess engine that exhibits both qualities- unique to their own style in analysis as top seed engines- then the focus can truly remain on elo alone.
(there might be some sad irony in that!)
Advancement in the Development of Analysis 29 59% (C-cup more focused on foreplay and tactical strategy? )
D-cup lovers might consider this wonder product- The "HOUDINI EXE-O-MATIC ELO INFLATER "
Houdini exe-o-matic elo inflater
(Ummh?! Role model issues presented here!!!! These two birds don't look Japanese! Oh! Heck! Houdini isn't really-well, a commemorative of Erik Weisz either! eh! )
> I can't say the same about the Chinese language though :-)
is better spend their time looking for a guy that doesnt care about small tits,instead of lying them
or go to have sex with a gigolo,that doesnt care how are you phisically
C-cup man translating that over to Advancement in analysis over elo...perhap? Or, are you just complaining over the stupidity of coming acros a chick who happens to have a padded bra and lacks the ELO you were expecting like... some regarding((Houdini 1.5a over Houdini 2.0c))
if the engine is improved a lot,i preffer the elo improvement;if the engine isnt improved a lot elo points,i preffer the advance in analisis
An engine IS in proved by an Advancement in analysis or it may be improved by an advancement in elo- which do you perfer!!!! Stop dancing around the question!
When there was a substantial gain in ELO, such as a full class difference between the previous front-runners and the new guy, that the change in class represented a closer approximation to the "truth" of the chess position. In that particular case, the answer was way more important than the analysis of the answer. Now, modicums of improvement, (though several 10's of points of ELO is NOT insignificant), are bettered couched in analysis to provide better understanding of the process and validity since we can no longer simply depend on it being the only unassailable "truth".
I think the answer is, I want an engine that is surprisingly and class better than the previous guy. Something that parts the sky and reveals things we just weren't really doing as correctly and efficiently as before. Something as surprising as Rybka. I want this more than anything...
In the absence of this, and it actually may be very difficult to do from the engine standpoint, is better analysis. The problem with better analysis, is that I want it presented so that *I* can understand it. And it is very difficult to get there. What I want from a chess engine analysis, is to be like an Andrew Martin chess base video. That in a given position, I can have the underlying ideas of the position, underlying strategic ideas, underlying threats, and ultimately the tactical truth of the position. So that eventually, *I* can see it, and ultimately, that I can learn from it and put it into my own games. I want to become a better chess player.
So first, the truth, second the teacher.
> This is the same argument
Which argument? There are two -as you delineate.
Rybka was able at one instance to satisfy both(Rybka 3 the last version to do so). Since then, Rybka has fallen from grace in the Elo category. Question for most is_will a ""significant advancement in analysis"" over loss of elo gain satisfy the voracious need of most for elo gain. Judging from this poll-I'd say "yes". But how much of a significant advancement in analysis would be acceptable to warrant buying the engine?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill