Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 23:34:04 11/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 01:00:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >>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 nice nice bob. >>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... aha. and how do YOU know ? without knowing the program ? without seeing its evaluation live in many many games ? i say it is different, and i came with a position difficult to understand for some computerchess programs that are on the market. IMO you talk about "hear-said" with showing your prejudices. you don't want that a new paradigm exists. that it even COULD exist. you are like newton talking with einstein, or the catholic church talking with giordano bruno. or the catholic church talking with galileo galilei. you have your point of view (it does not exist!) and you claim your point of view. nothing against this. its a free world. you don't see the thing because you don't want to see it. because it does not fit in your ideas how to make a chess program. its not possible for you. but it IS possible. i do not say that any program that "solves" the position is a new paradigm. i say that christophes program is very strong AND works also in this position. if cstal or gandalf would be complete losers, and would behave good in this position, it would not be a big thing, or ? but they are not complete losers. and even more for gambit-tiger. it won 2 tournaments, dutch and french championships, and IMO the reason it did so is that is is not working the "crafty/bob hyatt" way/paradigm. that was my point. and to give you examples i presented this position. of course what happens now is that the one with a different opinion make easy jokes, the ones who like to bean count come with results of other programs to show: there are MORE programs solving it. its not about solving. this is just an example. there is nothing to solve. you have to make your own plan to COME in such a position. you have to create the key-move positions you want to win with a big punch. therefore you have to create ideas. the new paradigm is not about finding the best move in a position. its about finding the best move for the idea! and only if it works, i will be able to convince you, since people of the old paradigm are this kind oif blind that they need RESULTS to see something that is there. no problem: gambit-tiger shows you RESULTS. >If it's so simple, Bob, why don't you play with this tweaked Crafty in a serious >tournament? exactly. they don't understand. >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. right. the thing is: it works. its not a "buzz-word" as bob, the "boss of the old paradigm", believes. Bob completely controls and oversees anything in the old-paradigm. he knows everything about it. but it seems he knows or does not want to know or learn or understand about the new thing. thats a pity. i thought professors would be interested in new ideas and have the job to promote development. >How would Crafty have performed in these two strong tournaments? How would the >tweaked Crafty perform? good idea. let it play against gambit-tiger. >The one who proves nothing here is YOU. Gambit Tiger has proved what it can do. >Your tweaked Crafty is just a joke. it works in THIS position. still the old paradigm people try to solve chess like solving cross-word-puzzle. they want to solve positions ! instead of teaching their programs to play a whole game of chess. hm. oh man.
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.