Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:49:31 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2003 at 13:40:17, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On August 20, 2003 at 13:30:12, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>The problem here was that Shredder book ended after move 6 and played moves >>which are week and need a too deep analysis to be evaluated correctly. I mean >>too deep for a chess engine. Hi, I remeber Shredder was out of book quite early. it could be that was at move 9. I have worked on this several months ago, so I do not remember well. > >Shredder was out of book at move 9. Yace, too, but after one searched move, Yace >transposed back to the book for another 3 moves. > >>So, the opening was not OK. It may look OK, which is something else. > >Peter clearly meant from point of view of Yace. You seem to mean the point of >view of Shredder. Well, I mean that we lost the game in the early stage. Better is that we got a disadvantage in the early stage, which the program could not realize. > >BTW. Stefan seemed not unhappy with the position out of book. If so, Stefan did not realize it, too. "If I destroy the fuel depots of the enemy. It will happen that the tanks of the enemy may be limited in mobility, but this does not mean that my tanks are better because they can move quicker and more." Do you understand what I mean? I mean that we lost the game in the endgame because we did not play the opening phase in the right way and went in an inferior position to win the game. Well, we did get a draw position, but we need to win, not to draw. We did not loose because Yace played the endgame better. We lost because we forced the position to win at all costs and in such positions it is easier to lose than to win. So, this game lost was basically a my mistake (a weakness in the book). > >Regards, >Dieter Regards, Sandro
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.