Author: Harald Faber
Date: 02:31:07 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2000 at 11:28:58, Thorsten Czub wrote: >[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 ... > > >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. Shocking is the way he uses programs. >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 ? What is the point? Black is a pawn up and some programs only say +0.1 for black. If they would only count material the eval would be +1.xx for black. It is not. So they consider the white attack and some own king safety. What is the problem? >You said that gambit-tiger is NOT new paradigm >but "just tuning of evaluation functions". Gambit Tiger, like Tal and MCP just evaluates a bit more optimistic than most of the other programs, nothing more. >If so : why is no other chess program evaluating Rhg1 "right" ?? What is the "right" evaluation? +2? +3? +5? Who says what the right eval is? Based on what? >You are mistaken. Gambit-Tiger is following the new paradigm. Come on Thorsten, get off that "new paradigm"-shit. It is nothing spectacular, just a bit optimistic eval and constructing king's attacks. Maybe that let's you dance on the table and sing "new paradigm, uh uh, new paradigm". :-))) I don't. :-) I enjoy it too, but there is no need to make such a hype. >fritz, junior, shredder, ... do not see anything. This is wrong, see above.
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.