Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 08:57:26 11/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2000 at 11:28:58, Thorsten Czub wrote: >[Event "?"] >[Site "?"] >[Date "????.??.??"] >[Round "?"] >[White "x"] >[Black "y"] >[Result "1-0"] > >1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 c6 8. Qd2 cxd5 >9. cxd5 a6 10. Bd3 Nh5 11. Nge2 f5 12. exf5 gxf5 13. O-O-O b5 14. g4 fxg4 15. >fxg4 Bxg4 16. Rhg1 1-0 > >let your famous programs compute about 16.Rhg1 please. Hi, This is the position: [D] rn1q1rk1/6bp/p2p4/1p1Pp2n/6b1/2NBB3/PP1QN2P/2KR3R w - - 0 16 I'm afraid my program isn't famous, but here is its output. It never considers that Black is better, although the score is falling as it gets deeper. I think I'll run this overnight and see what happens. 1= 54 0 188 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 2= 54 0 252 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 Bxe2 18. Nxe2 3= 31 0 804 16. Qc2 Nf6 4= 55 0 2228 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 5= 35 0 8550 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Nbd7 6= 58 1 40623 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bg5 Qe8 18. Bh6 7= 39 5 181115 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bh6 Qh4 18. Bxf5 Rxf5 19. Qc2 8= 39 19 476616 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Bf3 18. Bh6 Bxh1 19. Rxg7 9= 38 59 1706262 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 b4 18. Bg5 h5 19. Bh7 Kh8 20. Bxf6 10= 24 417 12520722 16. Rhg1 Qd7 17. Qc2 Bf5 18. Bh6 Bxd3 19. Rxd3 This is on a K6-2 300 which was a bit busy doing other things too. I can't comment on your views below, but one thing I will say is that PM would get crushed in a straight match against Fritz, Shredder, Junior or Hiarcs. And Gambit Tiger as well :-) Andrew > >i have e.g. Fritz6 running ... > >it says >-0.19 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.h3 Bxe2 18.Nxe2 Qc8+ 19.Kb1 Qxh3 20.Rg3 Qh5 > >Fritz really believes BLACK is better !! > >junior6a says: > >1'55" -0.18 depth 15 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bh6 Rf7 18.h3 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 b4 >5'41" -0.26 depth 16 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bh6 Ra7 18.h3 >17'56" -0.21 depth 17 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Rdf1 b4 18.Ne4... > >junior believes black is slightly better... > >hiarcs7.32: > >2'44" -0.11 depth 10/29 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 ... >8'7" -0.17 depth 10/29 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 h5 18.Kb1 Nbd7 ... > > >Now shredder4: > >55" depth 10 +0.03 16.Rhg1 Qc8 17.Kc2 >4'53" depth 11 +0.11 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Qg5 >9'11" depth 12.01 +0.03 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.h3 Bxh3 18.Bh6 Rf7 19.Rxg7 > >shredder, as fritz, has a "could be anything" line and evaluation. > >chessmaster6000: > >1'10" 4/9 -0.36 Rhg1 Nf6 Rg3 Qc8 Kb1 b4 Ne4 Nxe4... >9'28" 4/10 -0.13 Rhg1 Qc8 Kb1 Nf6 Rc1 Qd7 Ne4 Nxe4 ... >27'08" 5/11 -0.30 Rhg1 Nf6 Rdf1 Nbd7 Bh6 Rf7 Bg5 Qe8 ... > > >CSTal2.03: > >d8, 35s, -0.25, Qc2 Nf4 Bxh7+ Kh8 Rdg1 Qh4 Nf4 exf4 exf4 ... >d9, 107s, -0.72, Qc2 b4 Bxh7+ Kh8 Na4 Nf4 Bxf4 ... >d9, 195s, -0.48, Kb1 Nbd7 Rhg1 Ndf6 Bg5 Qc8 Rdf1 b4 >d10, 356s, -0.27, Rhg1 Qc8 Bh6 Ra7 h3 Bf3 Qe3 > >and cstal on the right "trip"... > >d10, 515s, >+0.10, Rhg1 Qc8 >d10, 809s, +0.39, Rhg1 Qc8 Bh6 Ra7 Qg5 Bf3 Qe3 Raf7 > > >remember: cstal was designed years before gambit-tiger. >you cannot expect that cstal gets the similar kind of >power concerning these stuff, but - instead of dump ideas, >it sees the main point in this position. > > >Gambit-Tiger1.0 > >2" +1.66 d8 Rhg1 Qc8 Kb1 ... >... >23" +1.86 d10 Rhg1 Bf5 Rg5 Bg6 Rdg1 Nd7 Bxg6 hxg6 Rxg6 Qe8... >36" +2.06 d11 Rhg1 Bg5 " " " " " " Qc2 Qe8 ... > >imagine now, you are a chess player, having black, >a customer who buys chess programs for analyzing chess, >you have a fast pc and chess programs, >this is a mail-chess game position >(it really IS!!! :-))) >and you would >have analysed it with fritz and all the other >bean-counters, >and NOT with Gambit-Tiger or other programs that >evaluate positions with chess-contents >instead of counting masses of senseless NPS :-))) > >you would have lost the game in the moment >white played 14.g4 because you don't see that 16.Rhg1 >is better position for white. > >sad. todays programs do not play chess. they compute >many things, but definetely not chess. > >maybe checkers. maybe they count the number of pieces. >they have gigahertz pc's, and still see nothing. > > >comments and main-lines of programs welcome. >i am exaggerating a little (:-))) but because this >is really a position one of my friends lost because >the he was so stupid to use todays chess programs >for analysis of blacks position, >its shocking to me. > >always and always we talk about RIGHT evaluation and plan-making >and and and. >but how shall programs play and plan when they have no idea >about what is going on on the chess-board despite counting the >material ? > >You said that gambit-tiger is NOT new paradigm >but "just tuning of evaluation functions". > >If so : why is no other chess program evaluating Rhg1 "right" ?? > >You are mistaken. Gambit-Tiger is following the new paradigm. >Its just in the beginning (version number is 1.0 !!) >but christophe has gone IMO through a door. >its the same way out chris whittington stepped through. >you don't see this, but i do. i don't know why you >want to convince me that gambit-tiger is like all the other >stupid programs. i have no idea why you try. i guess you >want to hide that YOUR programs are "normal" ones. > >show me the program that score this position (16,move) >as won for white. > >Of course a program that would be more than in the beginning >would play 14.g4 with the idea of the game-line. >But if they don't see that Rhg1 is winning the game, how shall >they see that 14.g4 is the way to the target ?! >they are blind. > >and the fact that you deny that, is ONE reason your programs >will not play chess. they play checkers. > >give up this old paradigm. it leads to nothing. >the new paradigm opens new point of views into chess programming. >it prepares you to go the next step into a higher quality of >chess-programming. > >i don't tell you about this to make chris and christophe up >and bring you down. >i only want to point on the differences ! >to show different approaches. if you always give your best >to hide and camouflage these differences, you will never understand >IMO which direction to go. >you will tune on what you call "accurate" play, but there is no >accurate play. > >the new paradigm is not to tune the evaluation function right. >thats nonsense. people have always tuned on the evaluation function. >to make it play this or that. > >why don't you understand this. chris never said you have to >make the evaluation-function accurate. that was the opponent, >genius (ossi and richard) or others. Mchess and CSTal and >others always tried to teach the programs to see something >that others DON'T see, to make the program capable to >invent something because they see ideas and chess-contents. >and you cannot evaluate an idea accurate. because you >don't know if it works. so how do you evaluate a position ? >16.Rhg1 is worth what ? >14.g4 is worth how much ? >there is nothing to evaluate if you don't know about chess. >you could count the pawns, but this will tell you nothing about >the content of the position, that black cannot really defend >this position. you have to see it, or not. > >fritz, junior, shredder, ... do not see anything. >therefore they will lose against gambit-tiger. >they follow a paradigm that will die out. > >"Where do YOU want to go today ?" :-))
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.