Author: kurt
Date: 09:57:28 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 12:44:28, kurt wrote: >On November 25, 2000 at 11:01:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >Well,--crafty evaluate position at move 23. as better for white. >It plays 22...Qd7 to defend with Nb6/Nbc8/f5 which proofs to me >that Crafty has the potential to be the best program. With some >fine-tuning in its knowledge-base and book it should get there soon. >Keep it up! Bob (if I may use that name) >Regards,Kurt Widmann correct 21.Nf3 Qd7 not as above 22..Qd7
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.