Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:45:03 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 09:44:46, Wayne Lowrance 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. > >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_,. I still disagree. IE the bishop sac by Shirov in the endgame last year was stunning. And correct. And deeply calculated. GMs are better at calculation than many give them credit for. They are quite capable of searching 20+ moves deep without making any mistake of any kind. Yes, they can blunder badly too. But not terribly often. I don't think anybody or anything can play a perfect game, until we get to the 32 man tablebases. My point was that I would rather give my opponent a chance to make a mistake without my sacrificing material if possible. Because if he makes a mistake I win if I sacrifice or if I don't. But if he doesn't make a mistake, I lose if I sacrificed, and I might not if I didn't... I speculate often (in Crafty). It sacrifices pawns regularly for nothing but positional consideration. It sacrifices the exchange regularly as well. And both of those, while risky, are not threatening to turn a win into a loss if the opponent plays well. But tossing a piece is different. That can lose. Quickly and easily. >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. The danger here is that as machines get faster, the opponent _does_ find the correct line of play. Even if it can't today. That gives me something to worry about. > >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 I am likely too old to fit that category today. But I am _still_ very dangerous. :) >> >> >>> >>>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.