Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:01:51 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 10:13:40, Thorsten Czub wrote: <snipped> >Nf6 is a typical bluff move. it pushes the problem over the horizont. >a horizont problem. this time a positive. >+ thats the way the new paradigm programs win. > >they see a win or a good move. Nf6. >they play it. >like a human beeing directed by ideas and illusions. I doubt how many humans will play Nf6 in a game. I believe that most of the strong players will not do it. They know that they can have a positional advantage with no risk and they will be afraid to sacrifice a piece if they do not see at least a forced draw. I believe that most humans are going to play Ng3. >creative thinking. there is never really an accurate way to win life ! >but by doing something and having the initiative you often increase >the chances to win. but - it is risky. if GT would have played >Nf6 against (say) GOD Nf6 would only have been a nearly forced draw. If white can win by another move instead of Nf6+ then Nf6+ is a mistake and when the opponents will get better playing this move is not going to lead to a win against them. >but the bean counters on the other side of the board are not god. >they have horizont problems too and this is the reason GT wins although >it plays smashing inaccurate sacs. I believe that the evaluation after search should be accurate. My opinion is that not accurate static evaluation can be a good idea only if it helps to get more accurate evaluation after search. When I play correspondence games I expect my opponents to be accurate and if I find that Nf6+ is leading to a draw then I play another move that gives me a better chances. > >whatever. the games are impressing IMO. > >If you have a program that plays accurate, it would e.g. not have played >Nf6 and other moves, and it would maybe not risk anything. >it would not risk something because it has computed that this risk is not >working. >you get a genius-program. plays boring , but accurate. never doing anything. >waiting for a mistake of the opponent. I disagree. If there are 2 moves that are leading to a draw an accurate program can choose one of them that is a sacrifice. > >this is one reason i do believe bob hyatt is wrong. he believes if crafty >is accurate it would play better chess. i don't think so. I think that no program is accurate and that no program is going to be accurate. If crafty is going to play accurate then it is never going to lose in chess. The fact that it is losing is a proof that crafty has no accurate evaluation. >crafty would not do anything. like a human beeing sitting in his chair, >completely >autistic because he had considered anything in forward and have found out that >life >is dangerous and therefore better not move ONE step forward-. >cause driving in the car is dangerous. >better NOT drive. and eating is dangerous. could be poisened. and sleeping is >dangerous, because you have eyes closed. everything is dangerous. so better >doing nothing. >and thats what crafty is mainly doing. accurate doing nothing. >if crafty would be a human beeing, you would call him ill. I disagree. There are humans who never sacrifice in chess and I do not call them ill. Crafty is not accurate and there are a lot of cases when it evaluates wrong and this is one of the reasons that Crafty lose games(it can sacrifice the king safety for a pawn because of wrong evaluation function that say that the pawn has bigger value). Gambittiger is also not accurate and can do the opposite mistake. The fact that Gambittiger is better than Crafty is not a proof that Gambit is more accurate about it because gambit is better in tactics and also better in the endgame. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.