Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:31:08 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 13:21:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 25, 2000 at 12:57:28, kurt wrote: > >>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 > >Crafty17.13's evaluation at moves 21-22(I used Crafty as a chessbase engine) >21.b3 0.40 for black at depth 10,-0.39 at depth 11 >21.Nxc4 0.37 for black at depth 11 > >After 21.Nf3 > >21...Qd7 0.54 for black at depth 10,0.59 for black at depth 11 > >After 21...Rc5 > >22.b3 0.59 pawns for black at depth 10 >22.Qe2 0.46 pawns for black at depth 10 > >I do not see positive scores for white > >Uri Don't forget this: we _must_ all get on the "same page" here. If you play crafty in "game mode" you will get significantly different scores than you do in "analysis mode". I don't know which of you is using what here. I have also been involved in solving several endgame problems given to me by a GM friend. He is quite happy with the results, but it will take a bit of time to get all the kinks worked out so that these terms don't overly influence the middlegame... I think things are a bit mis-tuned at present, but I am only working on the endgame stuff right now to get it "right". Then I will have to work on managing the two conflicting terms (endgame vs middlegame) to smooth the transition and also get them more coordinated.
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.