Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:12:20 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2000 at 11:28:58, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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 ... I would like to see the lines for depths 9 and 1-7, if you have them. What was it planning there, and what was the score given? >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 :-))) I think that there is more than one way to count beans, and you've found another way. In that position, white is down a pawn. So count the positional compensation. You are bothered that Fritz has 0.79 pawns of positional compensation, and you praise CST and Gandalf for having 1.39 and 1.35 pawns compensation respectively. It seems a bit crazy to differentiate between good and evil due to the addition of a half pawn more compensation. If your friend really lost a game because he assumed that a computer's evaluation of an attacking position was accurate to within half a pawn, he is probably not using the computer as an analsis tool any more than people who buy term papers on line are using the internet as a research tool. What Gambit has said is that there is three pawns of compensation. That's a lot more sigificant than arguing about the philosophical differences inherent in compensation values of 0.8 versus 1.4. bruce
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.