Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:24:09 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2000 at 23:19:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 29, 2000 at 19:18:17, Alexander Kure wrote: > >>On August 29, 2000 at 13:58:52, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>Firstly, apologies to everyone for dashing off after the last game in the WMCCC. >>> >>>It enabled me to get an extra day's holiday with my girlfriend, though, which >>>was well worthwhile! >>> >> >>Well deserved, Graham! >>Thanks again for your work. >> >>[...] >> >>This game clearly showed that Fritz plays in a different league than Crafty! In >>fact I think this was one of the best games of the WMCCC. >> >>Greetings >>Alex > > >My take on this game is a bit different. I do _not_ want my program to make >such a sacrifice and then see the eval steadily go _down_ over the next few >moves. It means one of two things for it to win such a game: > >1. The eval is bogus. It is saying "this is bad" when in reality "this is >good". I don't want that sort of evaluation. > >2. The program was lucky. A little luck doesn't hurt. But it doesn't win >tournaments very often. > >Either the eval was wrong, or it was lucky. Neither one leave me feeling like >"fritz is in a different league than Crafty..." > >I suspect white has better moves that might have justified the pessimistic eval >Fritz had... The right program might have made that sacrifice look as ugly as >this game made it look brilliant... In looking at the game more carefully, I now believe that Fritz did this out of desparateness, rather than as a brilliant attacking move. It saw this as the best way to lose a pawn, which seemed to be going down the drain... I never like piece for pawn sacrifices against a computer, however. They are _very_ dangerous as the attack _must_ not fail.
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.