Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:03 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 01:20:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 17, 2000 at 17:29:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 17, 2000 at 13:09:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 23:21:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2000 at 21:57:28, Sune Larsson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 21:10:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 19:51:41, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 15, 2000 at 21:35:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have to disagree. It is not hard to tune my (or any other) program to >>>>>>>>play this move. If you watch gambit tiger play, it has some _outrageous_ >>>>>>>>scores. In a game on ICC the other night, Crafty was at -.2, gambit tiger >>>>>>>>was at +3.2... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dr. I am interested in seeing this game. >>>>>>>I assume it was against subtleone as I currently see 9 in >>>>>>>it's history. Can you advise which game it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I honestly don't know. Albert can answer as we were chatting during the >>>>>>games... he was kibitzing tiger scores, crafty was kibitzing its own scores. >>>>>> >>>>>>About all I can do to help is to say crafty was white, it was an opposite >>>>>>castling game (crafty on queenside, tiger on the kingside). I came in right >>>>>>after the opening so I didn't notice what it was. And due to distractions I >>>>>>don't know how it ended. I simply remembered +3.2 from tiger, and -.2 for >>>>>>Crafty... until finally Albert said something like "+.5 here now, it seems >>>>>>that the attack is over..." >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Maybe it was the following game: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[Event "ICC u 5 3 2000.11.02"] >>>>>[Site "Internet Chess Club"] >>>>>[Date "2000.11.02"] >>>>>[Round "-"] >>>>>[White "crafty"] >>>>>[Black "SubtleOne"] >>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>[WhiteElo "2935"] >>>>>[BlackElo "2912"] >>>>> >>>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 >>>>>6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 Be7 8. O-O-O O-O 9. Nb3 Qb6 10. f3 Rd8 >>>>>11. Be3 Qc7 12. Qf2 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Rxd5 15. Rxd5 exd5 >>>>>16. g4 Bf6 17. Kb1 Be6 18. c3 Rc8 19. Bxa7 Nxa7 20. Qxa7 Qf4 >>>>>21. Bg2 b5 22. Rc1 Qxh2 23. Qf2 Qf4 24. Qd2 Qxd2 25. Nxd2 d4 >>>>>26. Ne4 b4 27. a3 bxc3 28. bxc3 Be7 29. cxd4 Ba2+ 30. Kb2 Bxa3+ >>>>>31. Kxa3 Rxc1 32. Kxa2 Rc2+ 33. Kb3 Rxg2 34. d5 f5 35. gxf5 Kf7 >>>>>36. d6 h5 37. Nc5 h4 38. Ne6 Ke8 39. Nf4 Rf2 40. Kc4 Rxf3 >>>>>41. Ne2 h3 42. Nd4 Rf2 43. Kd3 h2 44. Ke3 Rg2 45. Kd3 h1=Q >>>>>46. f6 Qd1+ 47. Kc4 Rg4 48. f7+ Kxf7 49. Kb5 Qxd4 50. d7 Qd5+ >>>>>51. Ka6 Qc6+ 52. Ka7 0-1 >>>>> >>>>>I saw 5 games played 16/10 between Crafty and Gambit Tiger (SubtleOne) >>>>>Result: 1-4 >>>>> >>>>>Sune >>>> >>>>I don't believe that was it. I am almost certain it was a draw, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Bob, getting the draw after trying a big speculative attack is not exactly what >>>I would call a failure... >>> >>>There was no winner, but at least somebody tried something... >> >> >>Of course it isn't... but that was an example only. I have seen games where >>the big score turned into a lost endgame. I only noticed that one as our >>scores were over +3 _different_. > > > >But I still don't understand. It is also possible to think you are winning a >knight, take it, get a +3 score, then lose the game a few moves later for any >reason (checkmate, trapped queen, unstoppable passed pawn pair, whatever). > The question would have to be "how often does that happen?" I don't see it often enough to be able to cite a single game. The question has to be, which is more prone to errors. I would say sacrificing pieces for mythical advantages is more dangerous than the case where you think you win a piece but don't, because the former will happen far more often, IMHO of course. I have a lot of speculative stuff myself. Two passed pawns on the 6th are one, and until I got this tuned right, I lost lots of games because I would sac a piece to get the passed pawns, but they could be stopped/blockaded/won beyond the search horizon... > >In that case, the position was worth more than a knight. It happens all the >time. > >The material value is a good evaluation term, but there are other positional >terms that could get high values. The most obvious examples that come to mind >are king attacks. It's obvious even for weak chess players that some king >attacks are worth sacrificing a knight, or a rook, even if it is not possible to >compute the exact winning sequence of moves in a reasonnable time. > >In my chess club, I have seen average chess players playing those bishop sacs on >H7 IMMEDIATELY and winning convincingly against my program after 10 moves or >more. Obviously they had not computed the winning line. They simply knew it >would lead to a mate! > >Chess books and chess magazines are full of these "themes". Only chess programs >think they are so smart that they can ignore them. > > > > > 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.