Author: pavel
Date: 20:51:55 11/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2000 at 23:40:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 05, 2000 at 23:03:47, pavel wrote: > >>On November 05, 2000 at 18:08:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2000 at 14:09:12, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On November 05, 2000 at 13:31:22, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 05, 2000 at 11:57:26, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>>[D] rn1q1rk1/6bp/p2p4/1p1Pp2n/6b1/2NBB3/PP1QN2P/2KR3R w - - 0 16 >>>>> >>>>>thank you for the position. >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>yes. the thing is not to find the move. the thing is: >>>>>how to evaluate the position ! >>>>>draw ? winning for white ? >>>>>better for black ? >>>>>how to evaluate positions where there is no material win ! >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>the score is 0.24 ? >>>> >>>>Correct. At depth 10, score is +0.24 for White after 417 seconds. The last >>>>number is the number of nodes. >>>> >>>> >>>>Andrew >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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 :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>right. you can reach lots of elo when you forget about chess and just >>>>>count the pieces and search very deep. you can even outsearch >>>>>more intelligent programs. but is this chess ? >>>>> >>>>>the position above is IMO about chess. >>>>>its not to find the move. its to see in move 16, better in move 14, >>>>>that white is better and black cannot defend much longer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>i am not saying: ANY program that finds the move Rhg1 is a new-paradigm >>>>>program. >>>>> >>>>>but i am saying that programs of the new paradigm find out that white is better >>>>>and has winning chances. >>>>> >>>>>Thats what gandalf, cstal and most of all 3, gambit-tiger evaluates here. >>>>> >>>>>the new paradigm is not about FINDING key moves. Thats not playing chess. >>>>>it is cross-word. is cross-word-puzzle-solving beeing intelligent ? no. >>>>> >>>>>the new paradigm is not about finding key moves in positions that HAVE >>>>>a solution. the new paradigm is about finding a plan and evaluating >>>>>it as a chance in a position that is NOT solved. >>>>> >>>>>you see the difference ? >>>>> >>>>>A bednorz-toennissen test-suite has 30 positions, and the programs >>>>>havwe to find the key moves. its bean counting. >>>>>the positions are all won ! the key move is there ! >>>>>thats not chess, its solving cross-word-puzzles. >>>>> >>>>>the differenciation is not WHICH PROGRAM finds the moves. >>>>>there is nothing to find. you have to invent something. therefore >>>>>you have to evaluate for it. >>>>>otherwise you won't follow the idea, or ? >>>>> >>>>>imagine you have fritz and you think: oh- the position is draw, slightly >>>>>better for black. and then you lose the game. >>>>>brilliant, isn't it ?? >>> >>> >>>Minor eval changes (commands any user can type directly into crafty) will >>>yield this: >>> 5 0.35 -- 1. Rdg1 >>> 5 0.40 4.17 1. Rdg1 Bf3 2. Bg5 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 5 0.64 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >>> 5 0.74 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 5-> 0.88 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 6 1.15 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>> 6-> 1.40 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>> 7 1.85 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >>> 7-> 4.66 5.00 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>> 8 7.20 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >>> Rxg4 Qxg4 >>> 8-> 13.21 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >>> Rxg4 Qxg4 >>> 9 25.25 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >>> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >>> 9-> 31.06 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >>> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >>> >>> >>>Which shows what your position proves. Namely nothing. The first issue is >>>to _play_ the right move. Whether your eval is overly optimistic or overly >>>pessimistic doesn't really matter, in this position... >>> >>>There is no "new" paradigm... >>> >>>That is just a buzz-word... >> >>what are the eval changes? >>and will there be overall effect on the playing conditiong of crafty is this >>eval is used? >> >>Pavel > > >There are several eval tweaking commands you can use: > >eval kscale 200 says scale king safety to 200% of its normal range, > effectively doubling everything. > >eval tropism 200 says scale all tropism stuff by 200%. This is a complex >interaction of pieces around the opposing side's king. > >eval asym 100 says to pay _less_ attention to crafty's king safety and >more attention to the opponent's... makes it more aggressive. > >fiddling with those three values can create wildly aggressive (or passive) >play (there are other terms as well, explained in crafty.doc). I always >believe that the default values are best, but who knows. You can certainly >change the 'personality' of crafty from tal-like to karpov-like, by fiddling >with these values. Note that over-aggression might be ok against some >humans, but _not_ against computers that have a clue about king safety. You >just end up wrecking your position for nothing and ending up in a lost endgame >for the effort, if you aren't very careful. > > >In the case of Crafty, vs humans _and_ computers, I see _far_ more endgames >than I do middlegame attacks, which leads me to spend my time improving the >endgame since that will influence _more_ games, regardless of what the >Tal-worshipers might want. :) it's a very interesting kinda experiment, ie. fiddling with eval values and finding which one is the best. is it possible to use it through .rc file? I have given up trying to compile crafty in my machine, nothing seems to work. I have messed with the chess.h for sometimes but was lost as to deciding which commands to DEFINE and which ones to UNDEFINE. :( any help? Pavel
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.