Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:27:01 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 01:00:53, Christophe Theron 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... > > > >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 Don't let upset Bob you too much. I happen to know how Gambit Tiger works and it is just great. No doubt I will try it myself for the next Rebel. Gambit Tiger entered 2 major tournaments and won them both without any lost game. That is all what is important. I think Bob is just a bit jealous. Perhaps I should send him a copy so he knows what he is talking about instead of talking bullshit and humiliate the good work you have done. Ed
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.