Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:11:32 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 05:33:27, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>On October 16, 2000 at 11:12:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>This is not fair.
>
>:o))
>
>>You can't blame the loss on a bad/weak move by black. Not after white
>>sacrificed material. The loss was caused by the Rc6 sacrifice.
>>
>>Or at least that is what we are supposed to believe.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>(good analysis by the way. I see some short-term suffering by black, but he
>>is material ahead. And once the suffering is over, counting pawns is a good way
>>to see who is winning.)
>
>It should be rather simple to prove. Can any of the other top programs defend
>the position after Rc6 at tournament time control? The beta testers might try to
>see if Gambit Tiger can defeat Tiger 13.0 playing black in this position.
>Everything I've checked suggests bad defensive play by black (not exactly
>uncommon with Nimzo) as mentioned by Amir. There's been a lot of personal
>opinions, but very little solid analysis. In my opinion there's nothing to
>secure a white win, except faults by black, but as a poor chess player I could
>be completely wrong.
>
>Furthermore, claiming that a new dawn for computer chess has risen on the basis
>of a single move in a single game is too simplistic to be taken seriously by
>anyone.
It is not a single move in a single game.
Such moves happen often in Gambit Tiger's games.
But each time such a game or move has been shown here you complained about the
beta testers doing propaganda.
But Gambit Tiger has actually done it in a serious tournament against one of the
best program.
This time, sorry, it cannot be propaganda anymore.
> That approach is not usually accepted, so why should it be that now. All
>this shouting from the roof tops is pure rubbish IMHO. The same goes for the "We
>see the light" (CT & Co.) vs. the people "Confined to living in darkness" (just
>about everyone else) approach. An obvious result when uninformed persons like
>Thorsten Czub are allowed to control the nature of the debate, resulting in
>useless quibbiling about games and numbers.
You can't pretend to be more informed.
You don't have Gambit Tiger. Thorsten has it, and so far he has been playing a
lot of games with it.
How is it possible to be more informed about what this engine can do?
I don't think it's a useless quibbling about games and numbers.
We have already seen on this message board people taking an interesting sac from
a human game and try to analyse it with computers. And it has created long
threads.
Why doing the same with an interesting sac played by a computer is considered
"shouting from the roof tops"???
If "Kasparov is a genius, he played XxY sac!!!" is allowed here, why "Gambit is
doing something new, it played the Rc6 sac!!!" is not allowed???
>The move is very nice and results in a more interesting game, but if the
>computer chess world should change overnight with every single move of good
>quality then it would be hard to stick to anything, let alone have a firm basis
>for going anywhere in particular. Aside from the fact that there would suddenly
>be a lot of "revolutionary" concepts.
>
>However, if the engine really is significantly different, it would be a nice
>addition as would any other new or improved program.
It is a really smart move to add a small positive looking comment into an
otherwise destructive post.
Christophe
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.