Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:22:25 04/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2002 at 08:41:22, Uri Blass wrote: >>I do not think programs has the postional knowledge of a 1400 player. Then you will be so good as to show, e.g. in Crafty, where there are evaluation stuff that could prevent the a4 move :) I see nothing in Crafty, which is know to have a lot of eval, that players above 1400-1600 doesn't know, it is basic stuff of passed pawns, connected pawns, material development etc.. beginner level stuff. There are a few specific ceses which are taken special care of, but there should be a hundred times more of that if it should get anywhere near my positional evaluation (1700-1800 I think). >I do not agree >I do not know how can you say that a sacrifice is justified positionally and not >tactically. > >It is justified or it is not justified. >A better positional evaluation only means that the evaluation is more often >correct. Well chess is complicated, often a sac is not clear so neither player at the board knows exactly if it is justified. All they know is that one side will now need to defend and the other side has gained all the attacking initiative. >There are humans that are better than 1400 who play unsound sacrifices and win >against 1500 players only because their opponents blunder. >If a human evaluates that his sacrifices are correct and is wrong in 90% of the >cases then I can say that his evaluation is wrong and he will never learn by >playing against 1500 players because he wins most of the games. Why would he mostly win against stronger players if the sacrifices are wrong? >A player can have a rating of more than 1400 without knowledge that bishop and >knight are usually better than rook and a pawn(something that programs know) Are you saying that B+N is always better than R+P? See, the human player is less strict about this, it depends on the location of the kings, number of pieces left, basicly the rest of the position. Very hard to put into rules, chess programs must find this out by search where humans often just need to take a quick look at the board to see which is best. >I think that people underestimate computers. I think they overestimate computers :) >I remember that in the match Junior-Gulko in the first game Junior evaluated one >of the positions as a draw when I evaluated that Junior has a clear advantage. > >The relevant position was posted at the time of the first game of Gulko against >computers by GCP. > >I think that Junior7 had better positional evaluation than me and I was too >materialistic. >I do not know the static evaluation of Junior but I believe that the static >evaluation was also close to a draw score. > >I believe that in previous stage of the same game Gulko had the advantage and >Junior did not understand it and it only suggests that there are positions when >Junior's evaluation function is better than my evaluation and there are >positions when the opposite happens. But the score Junior shows is mainly based on the search, it is not a static eval you see, it is the result of a search. >Uri -S.
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.