Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:14:36 10/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2000 at 17:30:45, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>On October 22, 2000 at 17:00:27, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 22, 2000 at 16:38:43, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>>
>>>On October 21, 2000 at 15:24:47, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>[D]r1bqkb1r/pp1p3p/6p1/3P1pN1/3n3Q/8/PP3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 1
>>>>The test is to avoid Nc2+ without book.
>>>>
>>>>Jeroen claimed that the problem is that Tao had no book but I suspect that the
>>>>problem is the fact that Tao has no king attack evaluation and if you combine
>>>>with the fact that Tao is weak in tactics like most of the chess programs you
>>>>can get the blunder.
>>>
>>>Well no big deal you say so but...
>>>
>>>a) Tao was capable of beating Quest/Fritz on 2x slower hardware
>>>b) Tao-Xinix (round 6) was a tactical beauty. The King (the reference) could
>>>hardly have mated faster here.
>>>
>>>In all, I don't think it is THAT bad tactically...
>>
>>I did not say that it is bad in tactics relative to most of the programs and
>>most of the chess programs play Nc2+ without book.
>>
>>My Junior5.9 can avoid it at 4 hours/40 moves but cannot avoid it at 3 hours/40
>>moves on my pentiumIII450 and Junior5.9 is better than most of the programs in
>>avoiding Nc2+.
>>
>>I can add that when I wrote that Tao has no king attack evaluation I meant to
>>say no big king attack evaluation(I think that Gambittiger and chesssystemtal
>>are the only programs with big king attack evaluation)
>
>Possibly, I can't really judge. But I would The King to that list. Why not start
>up a new sequence: AttackMaster 1000 in stead of CMxxxx ?!
I agree that The King is also good at this, but it is not as speculative as
CSTal or Gambit Tiger.
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.