Author: Peter Berger
Date: 14:29:57 03/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2003 at 16:37:59, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On March 26, 2003 at 16:22:47, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On March 26, 2003 at 15:27:39, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On March 26, 2003 at 06:28:52, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>These can be tough or very easy depending on engine - some engines seem to know >>>>too much here. They are also interesting for humans I think. >>>> >>>>6k1/p4p2/6p1/1P2p2p/4q2P/4Q1P1/P4P2/6K1 b - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>1..Qxe3! wins for black. >>> >>> Hi Peter >>> Do you really think that in these positons it is a matter of knowledge >>> for chess programs? >> >>Yes, I do - see below. >> >> >>I doubt and assume it's simply a matter of search and >>> calculation. >> >>This depends on the time availlable. You not only want to solve it, but you want >>to solve it fast enough. >> >> >>>We can see this from analysis with Rebel 12 Beta1. In the first >>> position it's easy to see for the program that white will lose a pawn. In >>> the second position, Rebel needs 9m2s to come to a slightly negative >>> evaluation for ... Qxe3? >> >>See? > > Hi Peter > Sorry, I forgot to post the analysis of Rebel 12 Beta2 for the first > position where the program sees an win within some seconds only. This > made me think that it's not a question of chess knowledge. > Kurt Hi Kurt, my opinion: the knowledge to be good at position 2 which is too deep to find by search hurts performance in position 1. Programs that give huge scores for outside passers will have problems to get number 1 fast( Rebel doesn't) but will solve number 2 without problems. I hope I made my point a little clearer. Kind regards, Peter
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.