Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:45 11/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2000 at 20:09:48, Bertil Eklund 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. > >Hi! > >I almost certain that Tiger is the only program that can compete with the best >endgamers with TBs. > >I have followed a lot of endgames vs Shredder4 and Junior6 (2h/40) and Tiger is >the only program that can compete without TBs. > >Bertil The positions I am thinking of have nothing to do with tablebases... mainly with pawns and lost endgame positions that are not recognized...
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.