Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 10:37:34 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 13:19:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 18, 2000 at 10:43:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 18, 2000 at 10:32:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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 believe that the choice to use gambittiger and not the default tiger suggest >>that the change in gambittiger is not wrong inspite of the fact that christophe >>did not finish to tune the evaluation. >> >>Uri > >I would hardly say his approach is _wrong_. I only said it is _suspect_ and >found a couple of cases where the evaluation itself was probably wrong, even >if the overall approach works well. > >The problem here is "full width". If you have a fast, deep searcher. And you >have a broken piece of evaluation, such a big tree will let the program search >into many positions where the damanged code can screw up and influence the root >score in a bad way. Something that is 90% right won't cut it. Because that 10% >will be used so much in today's huge trees, it will definitely influence overall >results. You explain your point of view very well, but unfortunately the same argument applys to playing too conservatively as well. BTW, why are you labeling such evals as "damaged code"? Are all evals "damaged" then, because they are not perfect? If they perfect, you would not need to search further than 1 ply.
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.