Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:19:03 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 18:11:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 19, 2000 at 15:29:11, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 19, 2000 at 14:43:34, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 19, 2000 at 12:13:07, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 19, 2000 at 10:56:58, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 19, 2000 at 10:17:32, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[Event "Open Dutch CC 2000"]
>>>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"]
>>>>>>[Date "2000.10.14"]
>>>>>>[Round "02"]
>>>>>>[White "Tiger"]
>>>>>>[Black "Nimzo 8"]
>>>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>>>[ECO "D20"]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bxc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Bf5
>>>>>>8.Nbc3 e6 9.a3 Qd7 10.O-O Be7 11.Be3 O-O-O 12.Rc1 f6 13.exf6 gxf6
>>>>>>14.Na4 Nd5 15.Bc4 Na5 16.Ba2 Bg4 17.Nac3 Nxc3 18.Rxc3 Kb8 19.f3 Bh5
>>>>>>20.b4 Nc6 21.b5 Na5 22.Qa4 b6 23.Nf4 Bf7 24.Rfc1 Bd6 25.Nd3 Rhg8
>>>>>>26.Nc5 Bxc5 27.dxc5 e5 28.Bxf7 Qxf7 29.cxb6 cxb6 30.Qc2 Qg6 31.Qa2 f5
>>>>>>32.Kh1 f4 33.Bg1 h5 34.Qe2 Qf6 35.a4 h4 36.h3 Qg5 37.R1c2 Rd7
>>>>>>38.Qe1 Rdg7 39.Qe4 Rd7 40.Qe2 Rgd8 41.Qe1 Qe7 42.Qe4 Qg5 43.Rc6 Nxc6
>>>>>>44.bxc6 Rc7 45.a5 bxa5 46.Qe2 a4 47.Qb5+ Ka8 48.Qxa4 Qf6 49.Qa5 Qe7
>>>>>>50.Re2 Rdc8 51.Rxe5 Qg7 52.Qe1 a6 53.Qe2 Rxc6 54.Re7 Qc3 55.Kh2 Qb4
>>>>>>56.Ra7+ Kb8 57.Qe5+ R8c7 58.Qh8+ Rc8 59.Qxh4 Rc1 60.Bf2 R1c6
>>>>>>61.Qg5 R8c7 62.Qg8+ Rc8 63.Qg7 R8c7 64.Qh8+ Rc8 65.Qe5+ R8c7 66.h4 Rc2
>>>>>>67.Bd4 R2c4 68.Qe8+ Rc8 69.Qe4 R8c6 70.Rd7 a5 71.Be5+ Ka8 72.Rd8+ Ka7
>>>>>>73.Qh7+ Ka6 74.Rb8 Rb6 75.Ra8+ Kb5 76.Qd7+ Rcc6 77.Bc7 Qe1 78.Re8 Qxh4+
>>>>>>79.Kg1 Qf6 80.Re5+ Kc4 81.Bxb6 Qxe5 82.Qxc6+ Kb3 83.Qe4 Qa1+
>>>>>>84.Kf2 Qb2+ 85.Qe2 Qxe2+ 86.Kxe2 a4 87.Kd2 a3 88.Ba5 a2 1-0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>please mention different defenses for BLACK, i will ask Gambit-Tiger
>>>>>>what he would have played for WHITE then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gambit-Tiger 1.0 played 43.Rc6 with +2.28 in iteration 12.
>>>>>>The move was found from the beginning of computation (+2.02)
>>>>>>and it exects black to play Rf7 instead of 43...Nxc6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thanks in forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>Amir Ban also replied it.
>>>>>
>>>>>See http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?133317
>>>>>
>>>>>Amir believes that the sacrifice gives chances for both sides to win.
>>>>>I am interested to know if tiger can get more than 50% against other programs by
>>>>>Rc6.
>>>>>
>>>>>My guess is that the result of Rc6(assuming no mistakes) is a draw and the
>>>>>question is if tiger is smart enough to get practically more than 50% with Rc6.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only way to know is by testing gambittiger against other programs from the
>>>>>position after Rc6.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I would be very interested in these test games from the Rc6 position.
>>>>
>>>>It would tell us more than the "Uhh, it's risky I don't want Crafty to play
>>>>this" discussion we have already seen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.\
>>>
>>>if you know what I mean...
>>
>>
>>
>>I guess we know what you mean. You'll stick with a shy evaluation and a shy
>>QSearch.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Nope. Guess it was too vague an implication.
>
>More simple: Just because a program beats another program after playng move
>X, does _not_ mean move X is correct. It could mean any of the following:
>
>1. move X is correct and wins, period.
>
>2. move X is wrong and the opponent simply wasn't good enough or fast
>enough to find the refutation.
>
>If you are happy in case 2, fine.
Yes, I'm very happy with #2. I would like to see much more of #2 in the game my
program plays.
> If that is the case this move Rc6
>belongs in (and it seems that it is). I am not happy with 2, myself.
>Because some program will be fast enough or good enough and find the
>right moves. I want to play moves because they are good, or because they
>win no matter what my opponent does. I don't want to play them just because
>he didn't see the refutation _this_ time. Using _this_ hardware.
Computers and human players do #2 ALL THE TIME.
Every move played by a computer or a human player is a #2. Because we all use an
heuristic evaluation function (and programs use it on top of a limited depth
alpha-beta search).
You are assuming that keeping the material balance is the way to go (that's why
you don't like the case #2), and you are using this assumption to convince
yourself that it is right!
While the computers are not able to compute deep enough to see the real outcome
of the game, we have to live with heuristic evaluation functions.
Talking about the "right" moves does not help. When a human or a computer plays
a move, he does not know for sure it is the "right" move.
So I have no problem to win by playing a move that is not the "right" one,
because you do the same all the time!
And if I win by playing a move that is not correct, you can call me stupid. But
don't forget to say that my opponent has been even more stupid.
Christophe
This page took 0.02 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.