Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:14:40 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 18:20:00, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On November 06, 2000 at 11:11:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 06, 2000 at 01:00:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2000 at 18:08:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 05, 2000 at 14:09:12, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 ? >>>>> >>>>>Correct. At depth 10, score is +0.24 for White after 417 seconds. The last >>>>>number is the number of nodes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Andrew >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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 ?? >>>> >>>> >>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>>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... >>> >>> >>> >>>If it's so simple, Bob, why don't you play with this tweaked Crafty in a serious >>>tournament? >>> >>>Remember that Gambit Tiger 1.0 has WON the two tournaments he entered recently: >>>the french computer championship and the dutch computer championship. It has not >>>only made a nice show, but it has also WON the tournaments. >>> >>>How would Crafty have performed in these two strong tournaments? How would the >>>tweaked Crafty perform? >>> >>>The one who proves nothing here is YOU. Gambit Tiger has proved what it can do. >>>Your tweaked Crafty is just a joke. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>I simply made the point that (a) crafty likes rhg1 period. And (b) the score >>can be biased in any direction possible. I believe yours is wrong. And I >>believe it will haunt you at some point in time. I don't participate with such >>a "wild" evaluation because I don't believe it is sound. A few on ICC have >>played with such evals and reported good results. At times. And bad results >>at other times. >> >>Just remember my earlier comment. After the middlegame comes the endgame. >>And vs GT I am _not_ doing badly in the endgames. Albert can give you more >>info if you want. > >Bob, not intended for side taking. but if your comparisons are made with crafty >quad the statement is not fair. BTW I have crafty 17.11 and compare it against >the top 3 commercials and crafty does not fair well with my practical testing at >all time controls. > >Dont feel like you need to respond >Thanks >Wayne I generally turn this around. Is their inability to use multiple cpus my problem? using my hardware, I don't see serious problems. That is all I have to go on. my 4x550 is not hugely faster than the 1ghz machines we see with tiger on ICC. Not even a factor of 2x faster. >> >>So against my program, all I am seeing is inflated evaluations that eventually >>drop back down to sanity, which sometimes leaves you in a hopeless endgame ] >>without your realizing that. >> >>I can supply a couple of PGNs if you want. >> >>If you are happy with your playing style, fine. That _is_ your program. We >>all like wild tactical games, when we win. But I also like to win, period. >>And, like Karpov, I'm just as happy winning a 4 vs 3 endgame as I am winning >>a wild kingside attack. It is the result that counts...
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.