Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 17:24:23 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 11:29:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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
Genesis' analysis:
depth time score variation
1-> 0.00 -0.77 1... f8e8
nodes 54 nps 0 q 50% hhits 0%
2-> 0.01 -0.29 1... h7h6 2.g4g5
nodes 789 nps 78900 q 47% hhits 27%
3-> 0.03 -0.17 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8
nodes 1976 nps 98800 q 37% hhits 26%
4-> 0.14 -0.24 1... c6c5 2.e1c1 c5c4 3.d3f5
nodes 15250 nps 137387 q 45% hhits 45%
5-> 0.42 -0.09 1... h7h6 2.c3e2 c6c5 3.g4g5 h6g5 4.f3g5 c5d4
5.e3d4
nodes 44260 nps 158071 q 32% hhits 39%
6 0.56 0.04 1... h7h6 2.g4g5 h6g5 3.f3g5 f6g4 4.h2h4 e7g5
5.h4g5 d8g5
nodes 21257 nps 151835 q 35% hhits 41%
6-> 0.89 0.04 1... h7h6 2.g4g5 h6g5 3.f3g5 f6g4 4.h2h4 e7g5
5.h4g5 d8g5
nodes 71322 nps 151426 q 32% hhits 34%
7 1.75 0.06 1... h7h6 2.h1g1 f8e8 3.c3e2 c6c5 4.g4g5 h6g5
5.g1g5 c5d4 6.e2d4
nodes 134364 nps 156055 q 33% hhits 29%
7 2.59 -0.05 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.c3e2 d8c7 4.h7f5 g4f6
nodes 270875 nps 159150 q 29% hhits 36%
7-> 3.00 -0.05 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.c3e2 d8c7 4.h7f5 g4f6
nodes 346034 nps 163764 q 28% hhits 39%
8 4.40 0.12 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.h7f5 d7f6 4.h2h3 g4h6
5.f5d3
nodes 234891 nps 168743 q 36% hhits 33%
8-> 8.81 0.12 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.h7f5 d7f6 4.h2h3 g4h6
5.f5d3
nodes 966854 nps 166469 q 35% hhits 31%
9 11.99 0.18 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.h7d3 f8e8 4.h2h3 g4f6
5.e1c1 e7d6
nodes 567404 nps 178709 q 24% hhits 32%
9 19.06 0.13 1... h7h6 2.h1g1 f6e8 3.e1c1 a7a5 4.c3e2 c8b7
5.c1b1 a5a4
nodes 1890467 nps 184525 q 22% hhits 47%
9 27.36 0.11 1... g7g6 2.h1g1 a7a5 3.g4g5 f6h5 4.e1c1 c8a6
5.d3a6 a8a6
nodes 3396084 nps 183106 q 23% hhits 46%
9-> 30.16 0.11 1... g7g6 2.h1g1 a7a5 3.g4g5 f6h5 4.e1c1 c8a6
5.d3a6 a8a6
nodes 3897877 nps 182561 q 24% hhits 44%
10 43.05 0.31 1... g7g6 2.h1g1 a7a5 3.g4g5 f6h5 4.e1c1 e7d6
5.c3e2 d8c7 6.c1b1
nodes 2268650 nps 176028 q 37% hhits 26%
10 64.65 0.26 1... f6g4 2.d3h7 g8h8 3.h7f5 d7f6 4.h2h3 g4h6
5.f5c8 a8c8 6.e1c1
nodes 6179721 nps 179179 q 34% hhits 30%
10 87.78 0.25 1... h7h6 2.h1g1 f6e8 3.e1c1 a7a5 4.g4g5 e7g5
5.f3g5 h6g5 6.c1b1
nodes 10270639 nps 178269 q 33% hhits 26%
10-> 100.54 0.25 1... h7h6 2.h1g1 f6e8 3.e1c1 a7a5 4.g4g5 e7g5
5.f3g5 h6g5 6.c1b1
nodes 12722150 nps 180786 q 32% hhits 25%
Of course ...h6 will be answered by g5 (Genesis needs a little more time to see
that). But even in deeper plies it keeps changing its mind between ...Nxg4 and
...g6.
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.