Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: you can tell whatever you want, i like this game...

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 09:05:03 11/10/00

Go up one level in this thread


On November 10, 2000 at 10:40:36, Thorsten Czub wrote:

>On November 10, 2000 at 10:27:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>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
>
>>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.
>
>
>?!?!? Can't you read ???? open you eyes before typing, please.
>
>CSTal says +1.16 in search 8 !! and hiarcs even said +1.84 !
>
>and if you give these slow programs (hiarcs 40.000 NPS, cstal 13.000 NPS)
>more time you get
>
>CSTal2.03:   d10    1273"  +3.33 Qe7 Kh7 Bf7 Qf6 Qxf6 gxf6
>Hiarcs7.32:  d10/30 34'19" +2.41 Qe7 Kh7
>
>thats exactly what gambit-tiger says much faster...
>
>gambit-tiger evaluates the same as cstal and hiarcs, just much faster
>than those slower programs.
>
>do you see it now ? thank you.
>
>>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.
>
>?????
>
>i am NOT back to my old point. when cstal is not winning the won positions
>because it gets outsearched, like hiarcs is outsearched in the moment
>by most programs, it can easily change tomorrow by giving them faster
>hardware or new search algorithms.

Did this attack work?  or did it fail?  You claim Crafty was lucky to draw
because GT couldn't find Qe7.  Is this not _exactly_ the excuse you used each
time CSTal lost a game?  It reached a won position, but couldn't win it?

Sounds like more of the same to me...




>
>gambit-tiger HAS a fast search. and you see that it has an effect, quite
>positive...

Not in this attack, which was my point.


>
>
>>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.
>
>i gave you a game and score and position. you call this handwaving ? shouting ?
>off-topic ??? oh bob - this is computerchess. it's about chess done by
>computers. the game i do discuss (or try to - it seems impossible to do with you
>because you behave little blind) with you is on topic because it demonstrates
>something. and the fact HOW you discuss it shows WHY you are uncapable to make
>any progress concerning this issue.
>
>>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.
>
>aha. ok. if you say it. it must be true :-)

As opposed to "If _you_ say it, it must be true?"  I trust the programmer's
comments.  He said it was eval differences _only_.  If you disagree, argue
with him, not with me.



>
>>Then shouldn't I have gotten smothered in the attack?
>
>right.

I didn't, so?


>
>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>not anyone.
>some programs are specialized because they have knowledge crafty hasn't.

The inverse is _also_ true.  I have given examples here already of this.




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.