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.