Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:00:53 11/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
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...
If it's so simple, Bob, why don't you play with this tweaked Crafty in a serious
tournament?
Remember that Gambit Tiger 1.0 has WON the two tournaments he entered recently:
the french computer championship and the dutch computer championship. It has not
only made a nice show, but it has also WON the tournaments.
How would Crafty have performed in these two strong tournaments? How would the
tweaked Crafty perform?
The one who proves nothing here is YOU. Gambit Tiger has proved what it can do.
Your tweaked Crafty is just a joke.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.