Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: what i dislike with fritz5.32 and fritz6, and why...

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 09:00:57 10/22/99

Go up one level in this thread


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.

The flaw of your car anology is that the evaluation of chess programs are
_never_ correct, unless they find a forced mate or draw.  That a chess
programs evaluation function does not change after making a move does not
mean that the evaluation is anywhere close to the truth!  Your own positional
understanding, Thorsten, is probably vastly superior to all the chess
programs you own.  Unless the program finds a forced mate or win of material,
you should _never_ trust the evaluation.  And when the program finds a line
which wins material, you should _always_ check the resulting positions
manually and consider if there is enough compensation for the material.

If chess programs came with an option to evaluate material only, I would
probably switch this option on when using the program for analysis (to
optimise the tactical speed of the program).

Tord




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.