Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 06:44:46 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 23:08:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 19, 2000 at 22:19:03, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>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). > >I disagree. In _many_ cases, humans make moves because they _know_ the move >is the right move. By deep calculation _and_ past experience. Bob, I don't think I can agree with this. There _are_ moves that are obviously correct but do not need deep thinking, they just _are_ correct. I do not think he is talking about those moves. There are positions that after best calculation can be refuted and therefore were bad, _there are no perfect chess games_,. Christophe is satisfied with a win that is brought about by the opponent not finding the correct play. That describes I guess all chess matches. I think you are chasing a goal with Crafty that is hurting the development of your program. I believe you are _one_ of the elite chess programmars, believe me I read every one of your comments as well as your peers. Wayne > > >> >>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. >> >> > > > >The problem is your opponent can get 'smarter'. And as he gets smarter, >you look more and more stupid. This is why I try to watch so many games on >ICC. Several dozen of us watched a couple of GMs go at Scrappy (Crafty that >only plays humans on ICC) last evening. It won almost every game, only giving >up a couple of draws out of 40+ games. But in watching, _I_ saw some things >that were not right. And even though the opponent lost the game, I saw places >where he could have played much better moves. And he might well have won as a >result. > > >IE if my program plays Rc6 and I can prove it is correct, I am happy. If I >can prove it is bad, even though it won the game, I am not happy. If I can't >prove it either way, I am concerned. That was the point here. I want my fate >in my hands, not resting on whether my opponent overlooks something or not. > >Yes games are often won/lost due to oversights. But in an even position, if >my opponent misses something, I might win. If he doesn't, I won't necessarily >lose. If I toss a piece, and he overlooks something it works. If he doesn't, >I lose. I don't particularly relish that case. > > >> >> Christophe
This page took 0 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.