Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:28:58 11/05/00
[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "x"] [Black "y"] [Result "1-0"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 c6 8. Qd2 cxd5 9. cxd5 a6 10. Bd3 Nh5 11. Nge2 f5 12. exf5 gxf5 13. O-O-O b5 14. g4 fxg4 15. fxg4 Bxg4 16. Rhg1 1-0 let your famous programs compute about 16.Rhg1 please. i have e.g. Fritz6 running ... it says -0.19 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.h3 Bxe2 18.Nxe2 Qc8+ 19.Kb1 Qxh3 20.Rg3 Qh5 Fritz really believes BLACK is better !! junior6a says: 1'55" -0.18 depth 15 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bh6 Rf7 18.h3 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 b4 5'41" -0.26 depth 16 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bh6 Ra7 18.h3 17'56" -0.21 depth 17 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Rdf1 b4 18.Ne4... junior believes black is slightly better... hiarcs7.32: 2'44" -0.11 depth 10/29 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 ... 8'7" -0.17 depth 10/29 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 h5 18.Kb1 Nbd7 ... Now shredder4: 55" depth 10 +0.03 16.Rhg1 Qc8 17.Kc2 4'53" depth 11 +0.11 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.Bg5 Qd7 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Qg5 9'11" depth 12.01 +0.03 16.Rhg1 Nf6 17.h3 Bxh3 18.Bh6 Rf7 19.Rxg7 shredder, as fritz, has a "could be anything" line and evaluation. chessmaster6000: 1'10" 4/9 -0.36 Rhg1 Nf6 Rg3 Qc8 Kb1 b4 Ne4 Nxe4... 9'28" 4/10 -0.13 Rhg1 Qc8 Kb1 Nf6 Rc1 Qd7 Ne4 Nxe4 ... 27'08" 5/11 -0.30 Rhg1 Nf6 Rdf1 Nbd7 Bh6 Rf7 Bg5 Qe8 ... CSTal2.03: d8, 35s, -0.25, Qc2 Nf4 Bxh7+ Kh8 Rdg1 Qh4 Nf4 exf4 exf4 ... d9, 107s, -0.72, Qc2 b4 Bxh7+ Kh8 Na4 Nf4 Bxf4 ... d9, 195s, -0.48, Kb1 Nbd7 Rhg1 Ndf6 Bg5 Qc8 Rdf1 b4 d10, 356s, -0.27, Rhg1 Qc8 Bh6 Ra7 h3 Bf3 Qe3 and cstal on the right "trip"... d10, 515s, >+0.10, Rhg1 Qc8 d10, 809s, +0.39, Rhg1 Qc8 Bh6 Ra7 Qg5 Bf3 Qe3 Raf7 remember: cstal was designed years before gambit-tiger. you cannot expect that cstal gets the similar kind of power concerning these stuff, but - instead of dump ideas, it sees the main point in this position. Gambit-Tiger1.0 2" +1.66 d8 Rhg1 Qc8 Kb1 ... ... 23" +1.86 d10 Rhg1 Bf5 Rg5 Bg6 Rdg1 Nd7 Bxg6 hxg6 Rxg6 Qe8... 36" +2.06 d11 Rhg1 Bg5 " " " " " " Qc2 Qe8 ... imagine now, you are a chess player, having black, a customer who buys chess programs for analyzing chess, you have a fast pc and chess programs, this is a mail-chess game position (it really IS!!! :-))) and you would have analysed it with fritz and all the other bean-counters, and NOT with Gambit-Tiger or other programs that evaluate positions with chess-contents instead of counting masses of senseless NPS :-))) you would have lost the game in the moment white played 14.g4 because you don't see that 16.Rhg1 is better position for white. sad. todays programs do not play chess. they compute many things, but definetely not chess. maybe checkers. maybe they count the number of pieces. they have gigahertz pc's, and still see nothing. comments and main-lines of programs welcome. i am exaggerating a little (:-))) but because this is really a position one of my friends lost because the he was so stupid to use todays chess programs for analysis of blacks position, its shocking to me. always and always we talk about RIGHT evaluation and plan-making and and and. but how shall programs play and plan when they have no idea about what is going on on the chess-board despite counting the material ? You said that gambit-tiger is NOT new paradigm but "just tuning of evaluation functions". If so : why is no other chess program evaluating Rhg1 "right" ?? You are mistaken. Gambit-Tiger is following the new paradigm. Its just in the beginning (version number is 1.0 !!) but christophe has gone IMO through a door. its the same way out chris whittington stepped through. you don't see this, but i do. i don't know why you want to convince me that gambit-tiger is like all the other stupid programs. i have no idea why you try. i guess you want to hide that YOUR programs are "normal" ones. show me the program that score this position (16,move) as won for white. Of course a program that would be more than in the beginning would play 14.g4 with the idea of the game-line. But if they don't see that Rhg1 is winning the game, how shall they see that 14.g4 is the way to the target ?! they are blind. and the fact that you deny that, is ONE reason your programs will not play chess. they play checkers. give up this old paradigm. it leads to nothing. the new paradigm opens new point of views into chess programming. it prepares you to go the next step into a higher quality of chess-programming. i don't tell you about this to make chris and christophe up and bring you down. i only want to point on the differences ! to show different approaches. if you always give your best to hide and camouflage these differences, you will never understand IMO which direction to go. you will tune on what you call "accurate" play, but there is no accurate play. the new paradigm is not to tune the evaluation function right. thats nonsense. people have always tuned on the evaluation function. to make it play this or that. why don't you understand this. chris never said you have to make the evaluation-function accurate. that was the opponent, genius (ossi and richard) or others. Mchess and CSTal and others always tried to teach the programs to see something that others DON'T see, to make the program capable to invent something because they see ideas and chess-contents. and you cannot evaluate an idea accurate. because you don't know if it works. so how do you evaluate a position ? 16.Rhg1 is worth what ? 14.g4 is worth how much ? there is nothing to evaluate if you don't know about chess. you could count the pawns, but this will tell you nothing about the content of the position, that black cannot really defend this position. you have to see it, or not. fritz, junior, shredder, ... do not see anything. therefore they will lose against gambit-tiger. they follow a paradigm that will die out. "Where do YOU want to go today ?" :-))
This page took 0.03 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.