Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:27:02 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
Note that except for CSTal, my eval pretty well agrees with the rest. At
the 1+ minute mark, my score is about -1.0, which is right in line with the
rest. I notice _nobody_ said +3.5. So I suppose I miss your point here.
>
>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.
So we are back to your old argument about CSTal? IE that it can reach
won positions but it can't win them? This chain of reasoning doesn't leave
me warm and fuzzy at all.
>
>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 !
I certainly don't mind discussing this, but handwaving, shouting, going off-
topic don't convince me of anything. IE discussion about reality, old paradigm,
new paradigm, Newton, and so forth does nothing to make any point you want to
make.
>
>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.
It doesn't do this. It follows the path its search, its q-search, and its
evaluation says is optimal according to the terms in the evaluation. It
doesn't know squat about "into the fog". That is nonsense. It is _still_
a normal "bean-counter" type program. The shape/size of the beans is different,
but that is _all_ that is different. You can try to cast it in the image of
CSTal if you want. But it isn't.
>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.
Then shouldn't I have gotten smothered in the attack?
>
>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.
You give lots of credit to "luck". But as I said before, If you drive into
heavy fog, you are as likely to have a major wreck as you are likely to make
it through the short-cut before your opponent, who takes it more cautiously.
>
>old paradigm meets new paradigm.
>
>the evaluation of gambit-tiger was correct.
>
>in the chaos/fog, old-paradigm programs are blind.
Anybody is blind in the fog. You miss that point every time. Unless you wear
infra-red goggles. Then there is no fog at all.
This page took 0.02 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.