Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:13:40 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 11:01:51, Uri Blass wrote: >I doubt how many humans will play Nf6 in a game. i meant the game itself is overall very human-like. not only the Nf6-move. >I believe that most humans are going to play Ng3. could be, yes. what about tal ? :-)) >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. right. accurately spoken. >I believe that the evaluation after search should be accurate. jajajaja. verstehe. sure. accuracy. trying to be god. the tarrasch-syndrome. playing like a machine (capablanca) = without mistakes. IMO your target is a wrong target. even spock has learned this. >My opinion is that not accurate static evaluation can be a good idea only if it >helps to get more accurate evaluation after search. there is no accuracy. this is a concept that only exist in your mind. accuracy only within a range. and since chess is not outsearched, the range is limited. >When I play correspondence games I expect my opponents to be accurate aha. and what about your wife ?! >and if I >find that Nf6+ is leading to a draw then I play another move that gives me a >better chances. this was 60/60. it was a 20 games match. when you have a time control, you cannot be accurate all the way. >I disagree. of course you do. >If there are 2 moves that are leading to a draw an accurate program can choose >one of them that is a sacrifice. an accurate program would rarely play a move that is a sac. also it would see that the move can be defended. so why should it expect to play the move or play it itself when it also sees a defense. >I think that no program is accurate and that no program is going to be accurate. aha. but you think one should try 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. aha. so what means accuracy ? you want to play the best move in a position. but what is best ? the winning move ? what do you do when there is no obvious winning move. what is best then ?! there is no move to mate in x and no move to win material in x. what is best move in x then ? >I disagree. thought so. >There are humans who never sacrifice in chess and I do not call them ill. you misunderstand me. i said not : never saccing. i said never doing anything because you saw in forward that it makes no sense. that it loses. so better doing nothing. >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. right. not accurate. i will send back the cd. i want an accurate cd ! especially for mail-chess. accurate. accurate. i want more accuracy. piep. >The fact that Gambittiger is better than Crafty is not a proof that Gambit is >more accurate no - i said the opposite. gambit tiger is more inaccurate than crafty, that is the reason it wins. you turn arround what i said. >about it because gambit is better in tactics and also better in >the endgame. maybe. but the main reason is inaccuracy. gambit tiger plays moves that COULD be good. i see you still don't understand. Nf6 is COULD BE GOOD move. not good. there are maybe better moves than Nf6. But - this is unimportant. Nf6 is good because it is inaccurate. only a draw move, but makes a trap the opponent fall into. thats the point.
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.