Author: Mats Winther
Date: 04:43:40 04/09/98
I haven't followed the discussion but I was very suprised
when Fritz5 took the lead in SSDF's list (I had expected
more from MCPro7) since I have made several testgames when
testing my own variations (on a 686/200+ with 40m/2h)
and Fritz5 mostly plays ridiculous chess. This disappoints
me much since these games are useless as theoretical basis.
From this I conclude that Fritz5 may be overrated in comparision
to humans (but not necessarily in comparision to computers)
since humans have a special skill in refuting positionally
bad play. Computers lack this skill. Fritz5 benefits from this
since he (more or less) simply skips the positional play - the
other computers can't refute the play anyway (not always the case,
of course). Instead Fritz5 counts longer variations and this is
useful against other computers.
I am worried that this programming strategy may damage the
development of computer chess since other programmers will
concentrate on big hash tables and fast calculating instead of
developing the humanlike positional qualities. Actually, there
is very much to do in this field. The programs are still rather
dumb. The stupidity of Fritz5 damages computer chess since
the Fritz program is the only program that many chess players come
into contact with. After playing against it they conclude that
it is boring because of its dumbness and then they loose interest
in this business not knowing that the other programs often produce
marvelous chess. I know that it works like this having talked
to people down at the club.
Here are two examples (among many) of lousy play by Fritz5 in variations
investigated by me which I wanted to test. But the
results are useless as theoretical basis:
[Event "test game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.03.29"]
[White "THiarcs6"]
[Black "TFritz5"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. f4 g6 5. Nf3 d5 6. e5 Nh5
{
1. r n b q k b . r
2. p p . . p p . p
3. . . p . . . p .
4. . . . p P . . n
5. . . . P . P . .
6. . . N . . N . .
7. P P P . . . P P
8. R . B Q K B . R
A B C D E F G H
Fritz5 rates this position as completely equal (0.00) which
is ridiculous since black has no compensation for the space
deficit. Nevertheless black's position is very stable and he
can place the knight (not the bishop) on g7, play e6 and place
the bishop on e7. Then he can play on the queen wing. But
Fritz5 manages to loose this position in a couple of moves (on a
686/200+) - an amazing feat!}
7. Bd3 Bg7 8. f5 c5 9. dxc5 d4 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Qxd4 Nc6
12. Qe4 Bxf5 13. Bxc6+ bxc6 14. Qxc6+ {with a winning position}
1-0
[Event "test game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.03.22"]
[White "THiarcs6"]
[Black "TFritz5"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. e4 b5 6. e5 Nd5
7. a4 Nxc3 8. bxc3 Qd5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. 0-0 e6 11. Ne1 Qd7
12. Bf3 Nc6 13. Nc2 Rb8 14. Qe2 Be7 15. Rd1 0-0 {theory ends}
16. Bf4
{
1. . r . . . r k .
2. . b p q b p p p
3. p . n . p . . .
4. . p . . P . . .
5. P . p P . B . .
6. . . P . . B . .
7. . . N . Q P P P
8. R . . R . . K .
A B C D E F G H
}
16. ...Na5? ( 16. ...b4 {The King instead suggests this plausible
continuation which leads to equality. The King obviously has a
much better understanding of the position although its rating is lower.}
17. cxb4 Nxb4 18. Bxb7 Rxb7 19. Qxc4 Nd5 )
17. axb5 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Rxb5 19. Ne3 Rfb8 20. Ra4 Bf8 21. h4 c6
22. h5 R8b7 23. h6 Qc7 24. hxg7 Bxg7 25. Qg4 Kh8 26. Bg5 Rb8
27. Qh4 Qb6 28. Be7 Rc8 29. Kh2 c5 30. Bf6 Qc6 31. Ng4 Rg8
32. Rxa5 Rbb8 33. dxc5 Rbf8 34. Rd6 Qe4 35. Rd4 Qg6 36. Rxa6 h5
37. c6 Rc8 38. Bxg7+ Rxg7 39. Rd8+
1-0
Regards
Mats Winther
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.