Author: Chessfun
Date: 03:20:22 01/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2004 at 04:51:32, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On January 30, 2004 at 04:03:46, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 28, 2004 at 14:40:48, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2004 at 16:52:59, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>On January 27, 2004 at 03:07:02, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>>> >>>>>a) an intelligent engine, which could navigate itself through any opening phase >>>> >>>>The Rogozenko match has shown that nowadays engines (even if not especially >>>>adapted for FRC or Shuffle) are most probably stronger than a "normal" GM at >>>>this. Rogozenko lost that match against Tiger 15, even although he was allowed >>>>to use a computer for tactical assistance! >>> >>>GM Rogozenko might not be able to win against computers in FRC with tactical >>>assistance. >>> >>>You conclude from one match (specific player vs. specific program) that >>>a normal GM is "most probably" weaker. >>>The same person would cry out loud if someone would draw the conclusion from one >>>short match Ruffian 2-Shredder 8 that ended clearly in favour of Ruffian 2: >>> >>>Ruffian 2 is most probably stronger than Shredder 8. >>> >>>> >>>>You always argue like engines would be complete unable to play openings >>>>themselves. This is just plain wrong and provides false information for new >>>>computerchess fans. It's just that the level of play may be somewhat lower >>>>*sometimes* (in a minority of cases IMO), maybe 2300 instead of 2600 in extreme >>>>cases, i.e. in difficult long range gambits. Man needed *decades* of opening >>>>theory and practise to explore such gambits. Often, much of the old analysis is >>>>wrong, refutations are found again and again. So why expect from chess engines, >>>>that they find all this correctly in 3 minutes?? :-)) >>>> >>>>In general, engines will be better than IMs and GMs anyway, when "normal" >>>>(normal for computers means very deep) tactical things have to be calculated in >>>>the opening. Im not talking about Kasparov, but "normal" GMs. Most engines know >>>>the common opening principles quite well (different quality of engines >>>>undisputed). >>> >>>Man, you have obviously no clue about what you are talking here. >>>Two of the three best programs according to SSDF (Fritz and Junior) know nothing >>>about common opening principles. >>>Junior moves its Qeen around in the opening like someone who hasn't learned yet >>>how to move with knights and bishops and Deep Fritz plays sometimes even worse: >>> >>>http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?345123 >> >>Are you sure that Deep fritz8 played the moves?> >>I do not have Deep Fritz8 but I suspect that the person who run it did an error >>and used a weak personality of Deep Fritz8. > >The person who run it was Axel Schumacher. I am pretty sure he knows how to >setup Deep Fritz 8 and didn't use a weaker personality intentional. > >My Fritz 8 (8.0026 now) does not like to play 6...e6 but Deep Fritz 8 is the >successor that played Kasparov. I assume this version is tuned to be very >anti-materialistic? > Analysis by Deep Fritz 8: 6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Qa5+ 8.Nd2 Qxd5 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Qe1 ² (0.49) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 79kN 6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Nxd5 8.0-0 e5 9.Qe2 Qf6 10.Rd1 ² (0.44) Depth: 8/21 00:00:00 205kN 6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Qxd5 8.0-0 Bg4 9.f3 Qc5+ 10.Kh1 Bf5 11.Bxf5 Qxf5 ² (0.46) Depth: 9/21 00:00:00 468kN 6...Nf6 7.dxc6 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Rb8 9.c7 Rb6 10.Be3 Rxb2 11.Bd4 Rb4 12.Bxf6 exf6 ² (0.51) Depth: 10/28 00:00:01 1222kN 6...Nf6-- ± (0.79) Depth: 11/28 00:00:02 2205kN 6...Nf6 7.dxc6 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Rb8 9.Nc3 a6 ± (1.00) Depth: 11/28 00:00:03 2859kN 6...e6! ± (1.00) Depth: 11/28 00:00:03 3447kN 6...e6! ± (0.84) Depth: 11/28 00:00:03 3837kN 6...e6 7.dxc6 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Ne7 9.c7 Bd7 10.Bd2 Rc8 11.Kc1 Rxc7 12.Bf4 Rb7 13.Bd3 ± (0.76) Depth: 11/28 00:00:04 4688kN 6...e6 7.dxc6 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Ne7 9.c7 Bd7 10.Be3 Rc8 ± (0.80) Depth: 12/33 00:00:09 9329kN Sarah.
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.