Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 06:50:36 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 09:21:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 20, 2000 at 01:44:28, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>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. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >> >> >>Any program looks stupid if it plays against itself but is given half the time. >>Even if you do the experiment with a very paranoid program that never takes a >>risk, with less time it looks really stupid. >> >>That does not bother me. I just try to do as well as possible. >> >>If my current version does 10% against a given opponent, I hope I will do better >>(11%?) with my next version. >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >>There is already an infinite work load if you try to find mistakes in lost >>games. That's why I generally don't look for mistakes in games Tiger wins. >> >>I know it's incorrect, but it's reasonnable from a practical point of view. I >>don't think I'm going to miss much by not studying won games. At least I hope >>that what I can find in won games, I will also find in lost ones. >> >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >> >>But don't you understand that whatever you do you will always end up relying on >>your heuristic evaluation function? >> >>You can't do nothing but hope your opponent will overlook something! >> >> >> >> >>>Yes games are often won/lost due to oversights. >> >> >> >>Not "often". Always. >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >>Would you if it would increase your winning rate? >> >>If you answer yes, then we don't disagree. >> >>If you say NO, then you are maybe too much of a perfectionnist, and you might >>get the opposite result of what you want... >> >> >> >> Christophe > > >we definitely agree. I have been "speculative" for a long time. So long that >I don't think it works very well against other computers. But it works quite >nicely against humans because they are more prone to mistakes. > >I do remember one good quote from a GM however. I recall a phone call from >GM Roman D, who has become a good friend over the years. His remark when I >said "hello?" was "OK, _enough_ with the aggressiveness, already." :) I >asked "why?" and he proceeded to show me several games he had played... and >he showed me where crafty was making decisions about being aggressive over >decisions about preserving good positional edges... Giving up positional >advantages is one thing... giving up material is something else. > >I agree that my opponent will make mistakes from time to time, in _some_ >games. The question is, do I wait for him to make a mistake while in a >position where with best play he can only draw? Or do I wait for him to >make a mistake where with best play he blows me away because I gave up a >lot of material to reach an unclear position? The latter seems far more >dangerous to me... Sorry for butting in, But Your opponent will _always_ make a mistake during a game, that is my opinion anyway Wayne
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.