Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 15:20:00 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 11:11:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 > > >I simply made the point that (a) crafty likes rhg1 period. And (b) the score >can be biased in any direction possible. I believe yours is wrong. And I >believe it will haunt you at some point in time. I don't participate with such >a "wild" evaluation because I don't believe it is sound. A few on ICC have >played with such evals and reported good results. At times. And bad results >at other times. > >Just remember my earlier comment. After the middlegame comes the endgame. >And vs GT I am _not_ doing badly in the endgames. Albert can give you more >info if you want. Bob, not intended for side taking. but if your comparisons are made with crafty quad the statement is not fair. BTW I have crafty 17.11 and compare it against the top 3 commercials and crafty does not fair well with my practical testing at all time controls. Dont feel like you need to respond Thanks Wayne > >So against my program, all I am seeing is inflated evaluations that eventually >drop back down to sanity, which sometimes leaves you in a hopeless endgame ] >without your realizing that. > >I can supply a couple of PGNs if you want. > >If you are happy with your playing style, fine. That _is_ your program. We >all like wild tactical games, when we win. But I also like to win, period. >And, like Karpov, I'm just as happy winning a 4 vs 3 endgame as I am winning >a wild kingside attack. It is the result that counts...
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.