Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:10:28 03/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2000 at 14:56:52, Stephen Ham wrote: [snip] >One of you gentlemen commented upon the fact that I'm being given information >regarding rejected lines, evaluations, etc. That was one of my concerns too. >From the beginning, I advised the operators of the chess engines, ChessBase >USA's Don Maddox and ICCF's Franklin Campbell, to use their judgement to withold >all data that may benefit me in the course of the game, such as >secondary/tertiary lines that can transpose to the line the chess engine >recommends, or whether there is a material change in its assessment of the >position. Franklin has indeed withheld information in these match games, only >giving me the details AFTER any "window of opportunity" has passed. Meanwhile, I >like having this information only because it aids in my commentary. Giving you >readers the most current data helps in your enjoyment and understanding of >what's happening. To this point, the commentary has been quite interesting. [snip] >Finally, these games are only about 8-10 moves out of the chess engines' >extensive opening books, so my preliminary thoughts are certainly premature. >Still, I do have some perceptions about these two chess engines: > >1)They both play at a much higher level than I expected. Still, I have minimal >experience with computer chess (I have Hiarcs 3 on an old computer at home...it >causes my computer to crash, so I never play against it anymore). > >2) Nimzo 7.32 has a fantastic opening book...very deep in the lines played. This is a reputed strength of Nimzo. >3) Fritz 6a assesses positions more accurately than Nimzo 7.32. Nimzo thinks it >has an edge in both games when I think the opposite is true. It's hard to really know which is more accurate, without having them assess many other kinds of positions. The sample size seems a bit small. >4) Nimzo 7.32 seems more agressive. When it doesn't know what to do (technical >situations with minimal tactics), it attacks! While this can prove decisive >versus humans in OTB chess, this can't be objectively correct behavior in Corr. >Chess with loner time controls. > >5) I think Fritz 6a is the stronger of the two chess engines. It has really >impressed me in technical situations and seems to have a human understanding of >what to do when no tactics are at hand. Please see my latest commentary for >Fritz 6a-Ham that should post Friday evening. Either it knows that the Queenless >endgame favors me or it is programmed to avoid Queen exchanges. It may know it, but my guess would be that it is just slighlty biased to avoid them. These computer programs are tough, but don't overestimate their ability either. >In conclusion, of the 4 games, I think I have the edge in 3 of them while >Ham-Fritz 6a is equal (although I had a nearly winning position earler, but my >"human" move order allowed Fritz to find a saving defense). > >I value readers input, so please feel welcome to contribute. That's how I learn. > >Thank you, > >Stephen Ham Thanks for playing these games and providing commentary! Dave
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.