Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:27:32 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
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 I think GT is definitely better in tactics. I don't think it is better in endgames. It has several important pieces of information totally missing. I have posted a game or two showing serious ones.
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.