Author: kurt
Date: 13:30:02 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 14:26:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 25, 2000 at 13:27:32, Robert Hyatt 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 >> >> >>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. > >My impression was based on some of thorsten games that he posted here. > >Here are two games when Crafty lost in the endgame when the evaluation of it was >close to equal during the endgame. > >These games are 2 of the 12 games that were posted by thorsten some weeks ago. > >Crafty lost at least one more game in the endgame but i prefered to post only >these 2 games because it is clear that crafty's evaluation was of something that >is close to 0 at move 40. > >The problem in the second game seems to be null move problem and Crafty was in >zunzwang at move 77. > > > >[Event "60/60"] >[Site "k6-400"] >[Date "29/10/2000"] >[Round "1-1"] >[White "Gambit-Tiger1.0"] >[Black "Crafty17.13"] >[Result "1-0"] > >1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 >e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. f5 Nc6 11. fxe6 >fxe6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Be2 Be7 14. O-O O-O 15. Rb3 Qc5+ >16. Be3 Qe5 17. Bf4 Nxe4 18. Nxe4 Qxe4 19. Bxd6 Rxf1+ >20. Kxf1 Bxd6 21. Qxd6 Qd5 22. Rd3 Qxd6 23. Rxd6 c5 24. c4 >Rb8 25. Kf2 Kf7 26. Rc6 Ke7 27. Rxc5 Kd7 28. Ra5 Rb2 >29. Ke3 Bb7 30. a4 Rb3+ 31. Kd4 Ke7 32. Bd1 Rb2 33. Bf3 >Bxf3 34. gxf3 Rxh2 35. Rxa6 Rh4+ 36. Kc5 Rf4 37. a5 Rxf3 >38. Rc6 Ra3 39. Kb6 e5 40. Rc7+ Kf6 41. a6 e4 42. a7 e3 >43. Rc8 e2 44. Re8 Rb3+ 45. Kc6 Ra3 46. Kb7 Rb3+ 47. Ka8 >Rb2 48. c5 Rd2 49. Re3 Kf5 50. c6 Kf4 51. Rxe2 Rxe2 52. c7 >Rc2 53. Kb7 Rb2+ 54. Kc6 Rc2+ 55. Kd6 Rd2+ 56. Ke7 Ra2 1-0 > > >[Event "60/60"] >[Site "k6-400"] >[Date "29/10/2000"] >[Round "3-1"] >[White "Gambit-Tiger1.0"] >[Black "Crafty17.13"] >[Result "1-0"] > >1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 >7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O Nbd7 9. Nh4 O-O 10. f3 Bg6 11. Nxg6 hxg6 >12. Qc2 Qe7 13. e4 c5 14. Be3 cxd4 15. Bxd4 Bc5 16. Qf2 >Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Rfd8 18. Bb5 a6 19. Be2 e5 20. Qe3 Qc5 >21. Qxc5 Nxc5 22. Bc4 Rd4 23. b3 Nd3 24. Ne2 Rd7 25. Rfd1 >Rad8 26. Nc3 Kf8 27. Rab1 g5 28. h3 g6 29. Rd2 Nf4 30. Rxd7 >Rxd7 31. Rb2 Ke7 32. Kf1 Ne8 33. Rc2 Nc7 34. Kf2 Nce6 >35. Ke3 Nd4 36. Rb2 Kd6 37. a5 f6 38. Na4 Rc7 39. Nb6 Rc6 >40. b4 Ke7 41. Rd2 Kf8 42. Kf2 Kg7 43. Kg3 Rc7 44. Kh2 Kf8 >45. Rf2 Rh7 46. Bf1 Rc7 47. g3 Nh5 48. Nd5 Rc6 49. Kg2 Kf7 >50. Rb2 Kg7 51. b5 axb5 52. Bxb5 Rc5 53. Bd3 Rxa5 54. Rxb7+ >Kh8 55. Bc4 Rc5 56. Rb4 f5 57. Kf2 Nc6 58. Ra4 Kg7 59. Bd3 >Nf6 60. Nc7 Rc3 61. Ne6+ Kh6 62. Ke2 f4 63. Kd2 Rb3 64. g4 >Rb8 65. Kc3 Nd7 66. Ra6 Nd8 67. Nxd8 Rxd8 68. Ra5 Rc8+ >69. Kb4 Rb8+ 70. Rb5 Re8 71. Be2 Re6 72. Rd5 Nf6 73. Ra5 >Re8 74. Ra6 Nd7 75. Bb5 Rb8 76. Re6 Rb7 77. Re8 Kg7 >78. Re7+ 1-0 > >Uri Yes you are right. Crafty lacks instructions from middle to end game face. Last game above shows clearly that no instruction are given to deminish the bishop strength by placing pawn on squares of opposite color.And,how to maximize its own strength. Like move 27...g5 /g6 etc. and does not find b4 for its night and force exchange instead of long king march into nowwhere. I hope Bob reads this concern of mine and provide instructions so that crafty can cope with such simple positions. Thanks for your effort to highlight crafts weakness. kurt.
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.