Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 05:23:16 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 07:46:31, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On November 09, 2000 at 18:33:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 09, 2000 at 15:20:24, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>
>>>Rf3 } 38...Red8 39.Kh1 { Score: 3,42 depth: 10 Kh1 Nf5 Qg5 Bc6 Bg6 Qf6
>>>Qh5
>>>Nh6 Rg3 Be8 }
>
>>OK... Here is a good point for discussion. My evaluation at this point
>>is somewhere between -.2 and -1.0, depending on how deep you let it
>>search. Here is the position:
>
>[D]2rr2k1/1p1b2p1/p3p2n/2Bp3B/1P3P1Q/PP5R/1q5P/4R2K b
>
>Lets see what other programs think about move 39...
>
>CSTal2.03: d8 88" +1.16 Qg5 b6 Bxb6 Rf8 Bc5 Rf6 Bg6 Qxa3
>Shredder4: d11/23 1'23" +1.07 Qe7 e5 Rh4 d4 fxe5 Qc3 ...
>Gandalf4: d9 ~ 1' +0.86 Bg6 e5 Rg3 Qd2 Rxe5 Qc1+ Kg2
>Hiarcs7.32: d9/27 1'11" +1.84 Qe7 e5 Rg3 exf4 Rg2
>Fritz6: d11/34 1'44" +0.72 Qe7 e5 Rh4 d4 Qxe5 Bc6...
>Junior6: d16 1'39" +1.06 Qe7
>CMaster6000:d3/8 1'46" +0.71 Qg5 Qd2 Qe5 Rc6 Bg6
>
>>It is black to move. White has the rook and queen doubled on the h file.
>>Black has the h-file blocked with the knight on h6. White has no way to
>>drive the knight off, and no easy way to capture the knight with some sort
>>of trade. IE the h-file is not going to be used for an attack very easily.
>
>>Do you (or anybody) think that white is really up the equivalent of one
>>piece (+3.42) here?
>
>Why do you believe black is NOT lost here ?!
>IMO the position is very clear. black is shortly before execution.
>
>>Is black blind? Is white over-optimistic?
>
>I think white is right.
>As you can see CSTal + Hiarcs have high evaluations too.
>They smell that danger.
>Of course Gambit-Tiger sees is much earlier in the tree.
>Hiarcs and CSTal are SLOW programs, when i let CSTal and Hiarcs compute
>LONGER, CSTal says after 1273s
>
>CSTal2.03: d10 1273" +3.33 Qe7 Kh7 Bf7 Qf6 Qxf6 gxf6
>Hiarcs7.32: d10/30 34'19" +2.41 Qe7 Kh7
>
>so the other programs SEE it too, only they see it much later.
>
>> Or is the truth somewhere in
>>between?
>
>
>the truth is IMO that white missed the right way to excute black.
>the position is lost for black IMO.
>
>Crafty's misevaluation is the problem it came into the position.
>and gambit-tigers , as you call it, inflated evaluation is the reason
>it played such an attack.
>
>If we give Tiger more time to consider , it sees that Qe7 is better...
>
>>My score for move 47 is -.33... it has very slowly climbed over the last
>>8 moves. I don't see how this game is a good example of what you call a
>>"new paradigm". It looks like the evaluation was inflated, GT slowly
>>found that it couldn't hold that position with the somewhat inflated score,
>>and the score settled back down closer to what Crafty was saying.
>
>I want to explain why i believe this game is a good example.
>I have seen many many of those games, with cstal and gambit-tiger.
>You say: the evaluation was inflated, the score settled back down.
>you say so, as if the score is a graph and has to be a line, that should
>come very close to what YOU call "reality".
>this idea is the old paradigm.
>it's like newton and his believe in a universal-time, that is everywhere the
>same, and all we have to do is to adjust our watches to this universal-time
>that is the same in the whole universe !
>
>GT evaluates the chances to pull you into chaos of a heavy king attack.
>this is the fog where the quiesence search has problems to evaluate and to
>handle the position.
>In CSTal chris has colored this chaos red in the inner-eye graph (an graphical
>image of the search-tree!).
>In this chaos the old-paradigm programs have problems to find out what is right
>and what is wrong. they have no knowledge to differenciate,
>they are blind in the fog.
>
>you must forget your ideas about accurate evaluation. you don't know which score
>is right. it's not important. if cstal and hiarcs and gambit-tiger
>like the position that much that they want to give >2.5 pawns, this is
>an indicator that they are different than crafty.
>
>in the position in move 39 there is no difference between
>hiarcs / cstal and gambit-tiger , only that gambit-tiger
>is faster in seeing the plot !
>
>crafty was wrong. and if it was not losing in the attack (lucky crafty :-))
>it will lose in the endgame or wheverever.
>
>old paradigm meets new paradigm.
>
>the evaluation of gambit-tiger was correct.
>
>in the chaos/fog, old-paradigm programs are blind.
Thorsten, I order you: there is no new paradigm. It is a buzz-word. There is no
chaos. All can be measured. Accurate. Everything is known already. There are no
new ideas. You are mad. I am mad. We are losers. We cannot be allowed to win.
Fritz is very strong. Fritz with 8 processors is very stronger.
Bigger-faster-more. Don't you understand? Why can't you understand? Are you
blind? Can you not see? Please see. Please. I can prove it. With results. See
10-9. See 45%. See 2600 ELO. Do you understand now? Look here is a list. We have
lists of numbers. Why don't you understand? King safety is +3. You are stupid.
Drive into the fog and crash in twenty car pile up. See what happens to you.
Continued in all threads .....
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.