Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:22 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 16:56:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 17, 2001 at 11:23:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 17, 2001 at 03:41:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>> >>> >>>How about looking at the position that results in the game forced after f3 e3, >>>and then evaluating that from human viewpoint? >> >>I don't think the "human viewpoint" matters here one iota. We are talking >>about chess engines preferring f3. Not humans. If today's programs prefer >>f3 after very deep searches, then I find it hard to criticize DB for doing the >>same after a much shorter search. > >I'm not criticizing the machine, man the thing is 6 years old >and in we didn't do much better at P133s and pentiumpro's. 4 years old, not 6 years old (2001 - 1997 = 4). > >The main point is that the f3 move is losing bigtime and chanceless and >that DB has completely missed Bh5 as a response from computer viewpoint >and its endgame evaluation of course also missed that f3 e3 is a simple >technical win, just like many evaluations of today still do, meaning in >short that it's very easy to explain why it played f3. How do you know it missed Bh5? Ferret says F3 and gx are roughly the same after a very deep search. I see no reason to criticize any program until you are _sure_ yours won't switch to f3 after hours (or days) of searching. > >f3 is not the best move in this position by any means. When computersearches >already show it's -5 then that proves my point bigtime, of course they >miss the next 30 moves which are needed to conquer chanceless all the other >pawns from white. Of course the other move goes to -5 also... > >If you already say -5 without seeing those 30 moves then the proof is >very clear! > >Best regards, >Vincent
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.