Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 13:26:15 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2000 at 14:22:58, Christophe Theron wrote: >You are bringing the subject up again, so I have to repeat what I have said >yesterday. > >It's not a "thing" in Fritz. >It's probably a pragmatic choice of the programmer. >The choice is dubious given that the goal in chess is to mate the opponent >(presumably by first building a strong attack against it), but if it works then >it's probably not so bad. >So, IMO, Fritz gives a little weight to the "king attack" part of its >evaluation. >Generally, a side building a king attack has to make some positional compromises >in order to achieve it. If Fritz values these compromises higher than the "king >attack" terms, then it considers that the side which is attacking has a weaker >position (for example, the attacker can weaken its pawn structure in order to >open lines to the opponent's king, and if the attack fails then the weak pawn >structure will later be a terrible handicap). >It sounds strange to a chess player, but given the idea explained above, it is >logical. And it's not so stupid, or else Fritz would be an obviously weak >program, which is not the case. so i buy a chess program that is - by choice of the programmer - blind in special situations that - just randomnly is the goal of chess ! to mate - happen from time to time... nice ! you buy a car and in a difficult situation, just by choice of the engineers who designed this car, the brakes don't work but a nice sound appears ! brilliant ! and nobody tells you. if you buy this car, it will in difficult situations, decide not to use its brakes. to make you sure about when tis happens, a nice sound appears. brilliant idea ! i would suggest we put this on the next fritz box ! be aware. when you buy fritz, and you want to use it, don't try to mate it with a mean mate attack, because the programmer has decided that whenever this happens, fritz will stop from recognizing your attack and instead indicate this with showing 0.00 in the evaluation and producing weak moves... good idea !! >Now what happens when Fritz opponent's makes a lot of compromises in order to >build its king attack? Fritz believes the opponent has got an inferior position. exactly. fritz is not playing chess. it is playing MOVES ! it is not evaluating the game itself, it is evaluating the position on board. it is not playing chess but checkers. >So it believes that the opponent will take a draw by repetition if it gets a >chance to. great !! the opponent is in a better position, and fritz guesses you will make a draw !! instead of programming about chess, frans tries this nice "nullmove" to suggest you are in a weak position and draw is the best you can reach. a kind of nullmove-heuristic !! :-)) >So in the case the opponent really builds an overwhelming king attack, Fritz is >going to believe for a while that the opponent will force the draw. Later, and >only later it will see by search that the opponent can not only force a draw but >also mate the king. the draw-score makes fritz unable to detect any weakening strategical move. it can only see short time tactics. and if not, evaluate +0.06, 0.00 or -0.12. but chess is not only tactics. sometimes you have to make a move to prepare something you plan. fritz cannot see this. because it does not lead directly into a material win. hiarcs and mchess and cstal and other programs HAVE evaluation functions to find out about these "unimportant non-tactical" points. >That's all. Fritz is not the only program to have this "problem". Tiger 12 >probably has the same problem, because my king attack evaluation was not very >good at that time. Chess Tiger 13.0 and Gambit Tiger 1.0 are different because >they have a lot of knowledge about king attacks. but tiger12 played really good petrosian-like chess. fritz not. >I don't want to discuss the choice of the programmer to pay little attention to >king attacks. This is not my point. ok. but i find it important to show HOW OFTEN fritz has these draw-score effect. from my point of view it is very often. >My point is that the explanation of the >"draw score" behaviour is very simple, and is not such an intrinsic weakness of >Fritz. IMO it is a weakness. you cannot win championships with this effect ! i have seen this score appear on fritz screen on championships. very nice ! >>if you call this cherry picking or >> >>"Now and then even the strongest programs evaluate positions wrongly, >>meaning that chess has not been solved, which might come as a shocking surprise >>to you. :)" >> >>is only desinformation of the people. >> >>what you say is on a low level. >>it is so general that it isn't an acceptable answer. >> >>i said: one reason why fritz loses is, that it is blind. >>when it is blind, it has these draw scores. >It is not blind, it has chosen to pay little attention to king attacks, and it >is often right. it is blind. it says : 0.00 and is unable to understand the sense of the move. thats chess. understanding of the moves of the opponent. >It's more about philosophy than about blindness. no it is chess. you are not alone on the board. maybe fritz is, but i see 2 persons involved. not for fritz. it is not playing a game of chess but trying to solve a test-position. and another. and another. it is not playing a game, but a move. >>we now see this behaviour is in any version of fritz. >> >>and your only answer to this ( i gave concrete examples ! even examples >>of your OWN data, i am sure you had these data but never understood the data you >>made yourself ! seems you have the same "bug" fritz has ! 0.00 Enrique ? >>well : 4.2 for moritz, and 0.00 for enrique !) >>is: >> >>chess is not solved thorsten ! >> >> >>stay on this level. it makes you look very good enrique. >Why are you attacking Enrique? enrique says NOTHING than the sentence: chess is not solved thorsten. and a few insults. as djordje and mogens are doing. they jump in a thread, without ANY point. all they want to do is offend. they have no data and no real point other than waving with their hands. i do attack enrique because he is not behaving scientific or computerchess alike. i am used to discuss things by arguments, points and data. this is the way you work with programmers. all i get in response in this forum is: people jumping on you, with no argument, no point, no data. only pissing on somebodys back. enrique from time to time writes for computerschach and spiele, djordje is linked to computer-schach and spiele, and mogens, he does not even receive other packages than chessbase packages, it seems. if he gets rebel11 for free it comes back undeliverably ! is he really a real person in denmark having a real adress ?! > > > > Christophe
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.