Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:20:26 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 12:14:42, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>>correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>:_( >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>>and dispose of you. >>>>> >>>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>>> >>>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>>> >>>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>>> >>>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>>> >>>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>>reviewed. >>>> >>>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >>>> >>>>Vas >>> >>>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: >>> >>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 >>> >>>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >>>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. >> >>That isn't very convincing. Did you look at _your_ PV? move 4? :) >> >>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they >>are played. >> >>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position... >> >> > >I will accept that my 4 ply search plays pass moves some of the time :) Zappa >uses pure R=3 now, and perhaps the evaluation isn't quite good enough for it. > >anthony Or perhaps the move is needed for other reasons?? IE sometimes moves far down the PV are pointless. Other times they are needed critically...
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.