Author: blass uri
Date: 08:39:38 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 10:39:16, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 04:03:51, blass uri wrote: >>you cannot see in the games thorsten posted that hxg5 is a mistake >>without a search and if you have an evaluation function that say it >>without search your program >>can do mistakes in sacrificing when the opponent takes the material >>and the initiative for it is not enough. >> >>Uri > >Thats typical. You reduce the games on hxg. But the problems came much >earlier. This have all 3 games in common. Black oversaw major positional >rules. can you prove that the problems came much earlier? can you win Junior or Virtualchess after Nd5 instead of hxg5? maybe you are right I am not the best player in chess (my fide elo is 2020) and I do not play the opening in the games you posted. >And I can name them to you if you don't know. I can make a list. I am sure there are things I do not know about chess but to name them to me is not enough to convince me I must see games without tactical mistakes to be convinced. hxg5 and c5 are tactical mistakes for me a positional mistake is a mistake I cannot practically generate a tree that in every leaf my computer program understand it was a mistake. >In the same way you say NO EVALUATION can see that hxg is shit, I can >tell you that no search will find out that these positional blunders are >shit. I agree there are positional blunders no search will find out. but I was not convinced that the these blunders were in the 3 games you posted. > >So ! How can we come together. Not with you all denying that these >"positional" mistakes are real ! Or that they don't care you. If you >really believe in your ideology about these topics, than I am pleased to >follow the development of your programs on the next championships and >other tournaments. >It will not work than. Overseeing major positional stuff will not lead a >program to win. > >When 5K would have no chance against 300K, this is what some people say, >and what I cannot reproduce, because cstal HAS a high chance to win >against Fritz, why e.g. was Gandalf able to kill Fritz ? Gandalf was a >slow program in the old days (before Jakarta) and was easily able to >kill Fritz. I have sent the games to chessBase. I do not say 5K have no chance against 300K I believe 5K who know what to search can beat 300K who does not know what to search (with the same evaluation function). I am sure 5K with a different evaluation function has chance against 300K I am sure cstal has a different evaluation function (I do not know if better because sometimes it can do unsound sacrifices) so I am sure Cstal has chance to win against top programs. > >Why do you deny things ? Why do you oversee facts ? Why do you want to >be blind towards positional things ? I did not say to be blind towards positional things I said that in these games it was not the point. and I said there is another important point of knowing what to search. Uri
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.