Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:17:04 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 11:31:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2000 at 02:34:04, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On November 06, 2000 at 01:00:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>Minor eval changes (commands any user can type directly into crafty) will >>>>yield this: >>>> 5 0.35 -- 1. Rdg1 >>>> 5 0.40 4.17 1. Rdg1 Bf3 2. Bg5 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 5 0.64 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >>>> 5 0.74 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 5-> 0.88 4.72 1. Rhg1 Bf3 2. Rdf1 Qc7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 6 1.15 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>>> 6-> 1.40 4.61 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>>> 7 1.85 ++ 1. Rhg1!! >>>> 7-> 4.66 5.00 1. Rhg1 Nf6 2. Bh6 Ra7 3. Bxh7+ Kxh7 >>>> 4. Bxg7 Rxg7 >>>> 8 7.20 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >>>> Rxg4 Qxg4 >>>> 8-> 13.21 5.35 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 e4 3. Bxe4 Re8 4. >>>> Rxg4 Qxg4 >>>> 9 25.25 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >>>> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >>>> 9-> 31.06 5.23 1. Rhg1 Qc8 2. Bh6 Rf4 3. Bxg7 Nxg7 >>>> 4. Nxf4 Bxd1 5. Ne6 Nc6 >> >>nice nice bob. >> >>>>Which shows what your position proves. Namely nothing. The first issue is >>>>to _play_ the right move. Whether your eval is overly optimistic or overly >>>>pessimistic doesn't really matter, in this position... >>>>There is no "new" paradigm... >>>>That is just a buzz-word... >> >>aha. and how do YOU know ? without knowing the program ? > >Perhaps because I _listen_ to the author of that program when he explains >what he did? Vs trying to dream of what I _hope_ he might have done? > > >>without seeing its evaluation live in many many games ? > > >I _have_ seen the evaluation live in "many games". Some of the beta testers >have asked to see my kibitzes (scores, etc.) and they do the same. That is >how I first noticed that its eval was often 2-3 pawns higher than mine with >absolutely no justification, based on the board position. It because pretty >obvious that it has lots of big scores for its own pieces, but it doesn't pay >any attention at all to what kind of defensive resources are availab.e > > >Not _every_ open file around the king is fatal. Particularly if your opponent >gets two rooks doubled on that file himself. > > >>i say it is different, and i came with a position >>difficult to understand for some computerchess programs that >>are on the market. > > >You are simply wrong. _every_ program anyone tried found the right move. But >that isn't good enough for you. You have some exaggerated idea about what the >_score_ for that move should be. I can adjust crafty's king safety quite >easily to make the score for Rhg1 -5, 0, or +5. Yet it plays that move >_every_ time. The number assigned to the score is not nearly so important as >the move that is chosen. > > > >>IMO you talk about "hear-said" with showing your prejudices. > >that is "hear-say" and I did "hear" what Christophe "said". > > > > >>you don't want that a new paradigm exists. >>that it even COULD exist. >>you are like newton talking with einstein, >>or the catholic church talking with giordano bruno. >>or the catholic church talking with galileo galilei. >>you have your point of view (it does not exist!) >>and you claim your point of view. nothing against this. >>its a free world. >>you don't see the thing because you don't want to see it. because >>it does not fit in your ideas how to make a chess program. >>its not possible for you. >>but it IS possible. >>i do not say that any program that "solves" the position is a new >>paradigm. i say that christophes program is very strong AND >>works also in this position. if cstal or gandalf would be complete >>losers, and would behave good in this position, it would not be >>a big thing, or ? but they are not complete losers. and even more >>for gambit-tiger. it won 2 tournaments, dutch and french championships, >>and IMO the reason it did so is that is is not working the "crafty/bob hyatt" >>way/paradigm. > >Then I assume you believe it will rise to #1 on the SSDF when it blows out >all those other "crafty/bob hyatt" paradigm programs? :) I can only say that based on the Rebel site gambittiger and tiger13 are only 50-70 elo better than the previous version of tiger and it means that it is going to have similiar rating to Fritz6a(50 elo better than tiger12 means 7 elo worse than fritz6a and 70 elo better than tiger12 means 13 elo better than fritz6a) I am not against tiger but I tend to believe the Rebel site more than the the impression of the beta testers. Gambittiger is probably not going to be number 1 in the ssdf because I guess that the improvement in Fritz is more than 13 elo. My guess is that Gambit is going to be number 3 in the ssdf that is a good result. 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.