Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:29:59 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 01:54:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 21:45:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 21:01:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>>So you _think_ that is why the computer took the pawn? Rather than just >>>>"taking a pawn?" BTW most programs would have played that move. Do you think >>>>they _all_ understood what was going to come down that file as a result of >>>>their _voluntarily_ opening it up to win a pawn??? >>>> >>>>I don't. At least not mine... >>> >>>I don't quite see the relevance of your this. >>>You gave Nxg4 as an example of a horrible move, I argued that its not a horrible >>>move. I guess you still think Nxg4 is horrible? If so, we agree to differ. >> >> >>I think that in general principle, Nxg4 is _bad_. If it _happens_ that it is >>the >>best move here, so be it, but I'd bet that a program thinks that black is >>better, >>and that's wrong. > >I bet that it does not think that black is better. > >Even an old version(Junior7) gives advantage for white. >My program(Movei) also gives a small advantage for white and likes Nxg4. I am talking about "black is better after Nxg4 than after another move." IE the score goes _up_ for taking the pawn. > >Nxg4 does not win a pawn because white takes the h7 pawn so I see no reason to >think that programs evaluate black as better. > >It is possible that the program planned other things against g4 but understood >later that they are bad. > >Saying that the program played bad only because of the fact that it got bad >position is wrong. Eh? So I can play _good_ and still get a bad position? :) Then I have been playing "good" since I started playing chess at age 7. :) > >programs are not perfect but against kasparov even GM's can get a bad position >in the opening. > >If the program played the opening like 2500 and the rest of the game like 2900 >then I think that it is not wrong to say that it played like a super GM. Yeah, but do you think it played "the rest of the game like 2900"??? I don't. Again, games 1 2 and 3 could have been all losses, easily, and should have ended 2.5-.5 at least. That's "super-GM" level chess? Particularly after looking at game 1? Another criteria for super-GM chess (IMHO): In which game did the comp have any sort of initiative out of the opening? Perhaps in game 5 after the sac, and even that is not a clear good move as most seem to think it loses. If you look at the 1997 match, DB2 played clearly strong chess and had an initiative in several of the games. Game 2 comes to mind as a game with only one flaw, that of Kasparov resigning when he should not have. But Kasparov was defending the entire game. In which game in _this_ match do you see that happening? And I don't particularly assess DB2 as "super-GM" stuff myself. Very strong. Very consistent. Just like Deep Junior. But I tend to play down the hyperbole. >Uri
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.