Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 08:48:04 08/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2000 at 10:40:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2000 at 09:45:45, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On August 30, 2000 at 04:47:49, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2000 at 04:34:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On August 30, 2000 at 02:42:49, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 30, 2000 at 00:31:24, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>But this is unavoidable. Otherwise computer programs would only need to do a 1 >>>>>>ply search. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. The program was lucky. A little luck doesn't hurt. But it doesn't win >>>>>>>tournaments very often. >>>>>> >>>>>>Again, unavoidable. Have crafty play against itself and you will still have >>>>>>decisive games. The games are won due to luck, since they have the same eval. >>>>>>The question is, "did Fritz make a good gamble?" >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Either the eval was wrong, or it was lucky. Neither one leave me feeling like >>>>>>>"fritz is in a different league than Crafty..." >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course, but that is pretty much how _all_ games are decided isn't it? >>>>> >>>>>No >>>>> >>>>>There are games when one side get advantage and slowly increase the advantage >>>>>without having a worse position. >>>> >>>>The only truly correct evals are a: win, draw or loss. The other stuff in >>>>between are _practical_ assessments that do not correspond to the true >>>>evaluation of the position, but they are precisely what all programs rely on in >>>>all games. Yes? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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... >>>>>> >>>>>>Better moves may exist, but you have to _find_ them. >>>>> >>>>>Crafty could find Nxe6. >>>> >>>>If Nxe6 is an improvement for crafty, it had to find it during the game and not >>>>after. Why it didn't is irrelevant to the result. The result still stands. >>> >>>The result stands but the impression that fritz is a different league than >>>crafty does not stand. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I have both programs. It stands, has been that way for a long time ! Fritz found >>a move that Crafty could not find an answer for, all of the other stuff is >>excuse making ! >>Wayne > > >I'm not trying to make _any_ excuses. Crafty lost. That happens. The issue >(to me, now) is simply "did it _have_ to lose that game, was the sac sound, >if not, why didn't it find the right response?" > >I always analyze losses to see what went wrong, otherwise there would be no >way to make it play better. There are two ideas here: (1) if it should have >found Nxe6 but didn't, then that changes things a lot. IE it shouldn't have >lost but did due to operator error, my error, or a programming problem. (2) if >it couldn't find Nxe6 on the hardware it had, period, then the discussion is >now not about Crafty, but about Fritz, since it played a bad move but the >opponent didn't punish it correctly. In that case, Fritz needs some tuning as >it won't always get away with playing such a sac. There is no sense in a >program impaling itself on its own sword... I apoligize, I should not have said excuse making. I have over reacted. I think bias had set in as Fritz is my favourite program. Wayne
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.