Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:57:34 11/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2000 at 13:31:22, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 05, 2000 at 11:57:26, Andrew Williams wrote: >[D] rn1q1rk1/6bp/p2p4/1p1Pp2n/6b1/2NBB3/PP1QN2P/2KR3R w - - 0 16 > >thank you for the position. > >>I'm afraid my program isn't famous, but here is its output. It never >>considers that Black is better, although the score is falling as it >>gets deeper. I think I'll run this overnight and see what happens. > > >yes. the thing is not to find the move. the thing is: >how to evaluate the position ! >draw ? winning for white ? >better for black ? >how to evaluate positions where there is no material win ! > >> 1= 54 0 188 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 >> 2= 54 0 252 16. Rdf1 Rxf1 17. Rxf1 Bxe2 18. Nxe2 >> 3= 31 0 804 16. Qc2 Nf6 >> 4= 55 0 2228 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 >> 5= 35 0 8550 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Nbd7 >> 6= 58 1 40623 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bg5 Qe8 18. Bh6 >> 7= 39 5 181115 16. Rhg1 Bf5 17. Bh6 Qh4 18. Bxf5 Rxf5 19. Qc2 >> 8= 39 19 476616 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 Bf3 18. Bh6 Bxh1 19. Rxg7 >> 9= 38 59 1706262 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. Rdg1 b4 18. Bg5 h5 19. Bh7 Kh8 20. >>Bxf6 >>10= 24 417 12520722 16. Rhg1 Qd7 17. Qc2 Bf5 18. Bh6 Bxd3 19. Rxd3 > >the score is 0.24 ? > >>This is on a K6-2 300 which was a bit busy doing other things too. I can't >>comment on your views below, but one thing I will say is that PM would get >>crushed in a straight match against Fritz, Shredder, Junior or Hiarcs. And >>Gambit Tiger as well :-) > > >right. you can reach lots of elo when you forget about chess and just >count the pieces and search very deep. you can even outsearch >more intelligent programs. but is this chess ? > >the position above is IMO about chess. >its not to find the move. its to see in move 16, better in move 14, >that white is better and black cannot defend much longer. > > >i am not saying: ANY program that finds the move Rhg1 is a new-paradigm >program. > >but i am saying that programs of the new paradigm find out that white is better >and has winning chances. > >Thats what gandalf, cstal and most of all 3, gambit-tiger evaluates here. > >the new paradigm is not about FINDING key moves. Thats not playing chess. >it is cross-word. is cross-word-puzzle-solving beeing intelligent ? no. > >the new paradigm is not about finding key moves in positions that HAVE >a solution. the new paradigm is about finding a plan and evaluating >it as a chance in a position that is NOT solved. > >you see the difference ? > >A bednorz-toennissen test-suite has 30 positions, and the programs >havwe to find the key moves. its bean counting. >the positions are all won ! the key move is there ! >thats not chess, its solving cross-word-puzzles. > >the differenciation is not WHICH PROGRAM finds the moves. >there is nothing to find. you have to invent something. therefore >you have to evaluate for it. >otherwise you won't follow the idea, or ? > >imagine you have fritz and you think: oh- the position is draw, slightly >better for black. and then you lose the game. >brilliant, isn't it ?? It is not news. It is known that there are cases when programs are wrong in their evaluations. Here is another example from Nimzo-Shredder in the ICC tournament: [D]6k1/2Q4p/p4bp1/1pBqp3/1P2n3/P4N2/2P3PP/7K w - - 0 1 programs are happy to win a pawn with Qb8+ Qd8 Qxd8+ Bxd8 Nxe5 and it is exactly what happened in the game but white lost the game. I do not know if Shredder was lucky to be outsearched or if Shredder had the right evaluation. We can find out only by getting Shredder's evaluation. Uri
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.