Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:27:02 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 12:55:48, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 09, 2000 at 12:49:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>In this game, Tiger was white and had an attacking setup. Crafty got pretty >>passive and Tiger was very aggressive. Crafty didn't do anything particularly >>stupid to get into this situation, I can imagine any program having problems in >>that position. You can't blame someone for playing black and getting >>king-attacked in a Sicilian. But Tiger could not break through. Crafty >>defended well and counterattacked. The balance shifted to neutral around the >>time Crafty played ... d4. > >ok - now it was the opening. which opening shall i setup to >make you feel confident ? What? It is hard to play black. It is hard to play black when your opponent has pawns on e4, f4, and g5, and you are castled k-side. No big deal. I don't particularly like 20. ... d5, and there could be some mistakes before that. But really, what can you say about the opening? Is there great insight or lack of insight shown by either side? It's too much to say that you shouldn't show any games where the hero program plays white, but this should certainly be taken into account. If you are trying to show how one program plays aggressively and one doesn't, it's a bit of a skew to start with an opening setup where one side has to attack and the other has to defend. It's also possible I'm wrong. It's not like I'm claiming to be joe god chess player here. Black has to get counterplay in that opening, it's not like black plays the Sicilian with the intent to be passive. I don't know where it came out of book, but it obviously didn't get the right kind of counterplay soon enough. >1.a3 a6 ? is that symmetrical enough NOT to say: it was the opening ?! >ok - i will do it from a3 a6 and you will hopefully NOT say: >the opening was good for gambit-tiger. I would be delighted to see this, but certainly you don't need to do it on my account. I accept the game you provided, but it didn't prove the points implied by the title of your post. bruce >>This isn't about inaccuracy or accuracy or anything else. It's about being >>aggressive and kicking heads. Tiger played very aggressively and turned all of >>its units into attacking units. > >right. and very consequent and very penetrant. > >> I think Crafty's evaluation was low. But the >>fact remains that Tiger's evaluation was not borne out, the attack couldn't >>overwhelm a point in Crafty's position. > >good. > >>For those expecting to see a sacrificial attack here, it didn't happen. (By the >>way, in another post, I said Tiger had not made any long-term sacrifices, and I >>was talking about in my games, not in the game where it played Rc6, which is an >>obvious long-term sacrifice.) > >ok - i see. gambit is no god. it cannot make wonders real. if there were >no long-range sacs, maybe ferret was too good to allow them. > >>It was BN vs R and two more pawns. Tiger made a very obvious exchange sacrifce. >> I don't know why Crafty didn't see it. Mine thinks the game is about even >>prior to the sacrifice, and it takes it 2.7 seconds to get a score of in excess >>of +1 on that sacrifice, and it's a good +1, I think it knows what is going on. >>I think that anything could find that. > > >>Pretty good game for Tiger, not a particularly good game for Crafty. Not a >>particularly good example if you are trying to present a clash of ideologies. > >>bruce > >ok - next follows a3 a6 game...
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.