Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:21:16 04/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2002 at 06:09:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 03, 2002 at 05:46:13, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On April 03, 2002 at 05:25:19, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>I suspect you are not really talking about static eval the way I do. >>>>Did you run you program on a position and let it search only 1 node?? >>> >>>I do not rememebr thew relevant position now but I remember that in at least one >>>of my games I believed that had an advantage when I had no advantage and the >>>computer knew immediatly that I have no advantage(I could not tell it to search >>>1 node but I could see that even at small depths it does not see an advantage >>>for me. >> >>They extend pretty deeply even at small depths. >> >>>I doubt if the moves of Fritz are significant positional errors. >> >>Maybe not, but they do reveal that the positional knowledge of programs are >>basicly infantile. >>I do not think it is possible to be 2700 elo strong if you have such poor >>judgement of the position, this is why GMs only use programs to assist the >>tactical lines, they do not think much of them when it comes to positional >>understanding. >> >>>>Fritz killed me later on the king side, I can't hold the tactics, the best I can >>>>do is to get fritz to play 20 nonsense moves, but it always finds a tactical >>>>shot. >>> >>>If it finds a tactical shot then it means that maybe the moves are not nonsense. >>>There is a simple rule in chess that when your position is really bad you have >>>no opportunity for a tactical shot. >> >>True. >>Fritz position is not bad, but it takes a while for fritz to crack me open, GMs >>would be much faster at that. >> >>>> >>>>Of cause you can make it so, it is easy go give a higher score for positional >>>>gain, but programs do not know when it is correct to sac, you said yourself you >>>>disagreed with the program :) >>> >>>Humans also play sometimes wrong positional sacrifices. >>> >>>I gave the wrong move only as an example to prove that programs can sacrifice. >>> >>>Both humans and machines may be wrong or right in sacrificing but if I give >>>cases of a right sacrifice you may claim that maybe the program saw everything >>>in advance so it is not a sacrifice(something that is not always correct). >> >>Hehe, well maybe. >>I have however never seen a program sacrifice a bishop or knight into the >>opponents king position if it did not see the mate or material gain 10 moves >>later. > >I guess that you did not see the games of chess system tal. > >Another point is that I also saw humans sacrifice a bishop or a knight into the >opponents king position when the sacrifise was wrong and computers do not >suggest to sacrifice from the first ply and you cannot ignore these cases when >you compare between the static evaluation of humans and the static evaluation of >computers. The point is, that it is probably correct from a positional point of wiev, but the tactics may make it wrong. The picture is reversed, humans make tactical error but computers make positional errors. I do not think programs has the postional knowledge of a 1400 player. -S. >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.