Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:17:06 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 15:58:31, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 13:44:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I don't have any "suspicious speculation" in this case. Only a strong feeling >>that "right move, wrong reason" is not convincing me of very much. IE on ICC >>the other night we had a long discussion about a move Crafty had played. The >>GM (Don't remember who it was not, but not Roman) said "Rd4 was beautiful... >>I am very impressed that the program saw it as it led to a crushing position >>for it." I looked at the log and told the group discussing this "The score was >>very bad for it at that point... it actually thought that move was best, but >>that it was losing the game... until it failed high on the 'pondering search' >>after playing it." We all agreed that it was just "lucky" there that it found >>a move that turned into a win, even though it had no idea when it played it how >>it would turn out... >> >>That was my point. Yes it played the right move. No it didn't understand >>why. It played it fully expecting to lose. It could have played any of >>_several_ moves and _still_ expected to lose. It just _happened_ to pick the >>right one. In this case, for a reason (weak opponent pawn) that had _nothing_ >>to do with how the game actually progressed and was won by that move. > >The problem with this argumentation is that "right reason" only holds if you're >able to distinguish between moves by a rising score at a shallow depth. So it's >basically useless in most cases. Crafty played Rd4 because it evaluated the move >as being best. Labelling the reasons as either wrong or right for the chosing >the initial move is wrong. > >If the PV at the time of the move was close to what happened in the game then I >consider it to be chosen for the right reason, even though the score may have >been inaccurate due to insufficient depth. > >Either way, using human perception of "right" and "wrong" reasons based on score >alone is very simplistic and useless IMHO. > >Mogens. Obviously I don't suggest _only_ relying on the score. My earlier comments on the "gambit tiger sacrifices" should dispose of that idea quickly. The _right_ PV is convincing. The right score might be convincing. The right move _and_ a reasonable score is convincing. The only exception is that the right move, wrong PV, wrong score is _not_ convincing at all...
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.