Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 05:18:33 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1999 at 06:39:37, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>On October 22, 1999 at 05:04:42, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>
>>On October 21, 1999 at 23:01:15, Laurence Chen wrote:
>>
>>>This does not surprise me at all. I've seen this happens with other engines as
>>>well. I don't think it is fair to pick on Fritz and accuse it that it's stupid
>>>in analysis or it's very dumb, but the user behind it. It's like the old
>>>saying, the blind leads the blind and they both fall off into the ditch.
>>>Therefore, this is a warning sign to all users who relies solely and takes any
>>>computer chess analysis as the ULTIMATE truth. I personally never take any chess
>>>analysis to its face value, I always play another move, or another ply and see
>>>if the evaluation changes dramatically. If it remains the same, then I know that
>>>the assessment is correct, if it changes dramatically, then it's because of the
>>>horizon effect which all chess engines suffer, and I would then conclude that
>>>the chess engine is off in its evaluation. To someone new to chess engine this
>>>may be a new revelation. Therefore the moral is one should never trust any
>>>analysis of chess engines without further investigation.
>>>Laurence
>>
>>When i have a car and it says there is enough fuel in the tank,
>>i will NOT drive to a petrol-station.
>>If this makes me suddenly stand without fuel .... i call this a
>>shit car. and will bring it to a garage to repair it.
>>
>>I know enough programs who don't change the evaulation
>>in such positions.
>>i better use THESE programs.
>>and call the others dump.
>
>This is like saying that you can't trust prepocessors, null movers and selective
>searchers because they have holes. The other side of the coin is that you can
>trust them better because they go so much deeper and are likely to see more in
>most cases. Try this position and see how Fritz, Tiger, Nimzo and Crafty will
>play Kf2, sticking to it forever with a 0.00 evaluation. Then force Qe1+ and
>suddenly they see that white wins. There are many examples like this.
>
>Enrique
>
>[Event ""]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1934.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Kasparjan, G."]
>[Black ""]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[Annotator ""]
>[SetUp "1"]
>[FEN "8/2B1Q3/8/6pp/7k/7P/6P1/2q3K1 w - - 0 5"]
>[PlyCount "9"]
>[EventDate "1934.??.??"]
>
>5. Qe1+ $3 Qxe1+ 6. Kh2 Qf2 7. Bd6 $1 Qf4+ 8. g3+ Qxg3+ 9. Bxg3# 1-0
Here we talk about analysis. So time is not so much an issue. You may choose
to use a no-null-mover and give it some more time to reach the same depth.
Your position is easyly seen as a possible problem for a null-mover, because
the black king stands in a dangerous position.
So you cannot trust a null-mover (usually). And yes, there are many examples
like this.
By the way, Crafty (somewhat modified) gives:
19-> 5:14 23.01 1. Qe1+ Qxe1+ 2. Kh2 Qf2 3. Bd6 Qg1+
4. Kxg1 g4 5. hxg4 Kg5 6. gxh5 Kg4
7. h6 Kg5 8. h7 Kf5 9. h8=Q Ke4 10.
Qe5+ Kd3 11. g4 Kc4 12. g5 Kd3 13.
Qf5+ Ke3 14. Bc5+ Ke2 15. Qf1+ Kd2
16. g6
Kind regards
Bernhard
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.