Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:54:35 01/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2001 at 15:41:53, Pete Galati wrote: >On January 17, 2001 at 13:22:02, Dann Corbit wrote: [snip] >>Better yet, analayze the entire trace of: >>1. The games actually played >>2. The suggested alternatives >>3. The moves the engines suggest > >I don't completely understand. Are you talking about analyzing games as in >Crafty's "annotate" command? If so, then what would you do with the >annotations? No. Using OCD to translate the PGN into EPD. Batch process the EPD at 12 minutes per record. For the supposed traces from a given position, use Thomas Mooney III's EpdProcessor to generate EPD for the suggested PV. Batch process the EPD at 12 minutes per record. If suggested moves do NOT follow the suggested PV or the game, then generate EPD and analyse the suggested trace until termination at 12 minutes per position. >Also, if you have several different programs crunching numbers on the games and >positions, how do you decide which one is correct? Look at the final outcome and look at how things turned out during the search. For each suggestion by each program, follow the exact same steps as outlined above. If it turns out that there are several winning trajectories beyond refutation, then all of them are equally good. >>It would take about a month of effort with several computers to complete. But >>when finished, the results would be a worthy test suite. > >If possible, it would be great if somebody here at CCC knew a highly rated GM >that would be willing to sit down and provide opinions, partly because computer >Chess programs can't be incorporating as much human instinct for the game as >they'd like to. That would be ideal. Then computers could double check for tactical traps that the GM's missed. >Anyhow..., this below may or may not illustrate what Uri is trying to say. From >that test suite, pos 8, Comet in Chessbase instead of the Dos version, agreed >with b4 for a while, and then said "screw that" and went and picked the lowest >score Qc1! How could this be? Tactical snacking is what drives computers. Positional moves are the hardest thing for computers. Of course, it may also be the case that there is a hidden tactical flaw in the positional choice. Or the positional choice may require a sacrifice at some point in the future that the computer really does not understand. There are a thousand additional reasons the computer could be wrong and the same number that it might be right and the GM wrong. Depth of analysis is not sufficient unless a checkmate is proven. >positional scores are: b4=10, Nd4=8, Rd2=5, Qc1=5" > >[D]2rq3r/pb1pbkpp/1p2pp2/n1P5/2P5/QP2BNPB/P3PP1P/3R1RK1 w - - 0 1; id "8"; > >Analysis by Comet B27: > >1.Qxa5 bxa5 > -+ (-6.17) Depth: 1/6 00:00:00 >1.Qa4 > ± (1.12) Depth: 1/15 00:00:00 >1.Qa4 > ± (1.12) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.Qa4 > ± (1.12) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.Qa4 > ± (1.12) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.Qa4 Bc6 > ± (0.73) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Nxe3 3.fxe3 > ± (1.07) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Nxe3 3.fxe3 > ± (1.07) Depth: 3/15 00:00:00 >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Bc6 > ± (1.01) Depth: 4/19 00:00:00 >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Bd5 3.Bd4 bxc5 4.Bxc5 > ± (0.87) Depth: 5/19 00:00:00 30kN >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Bd5 3.Bd4 bxc5 4.bxc5 > ± (0.72) Depth: 5/19 00:00:01 112kN >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Bc6 3.Bd4 e5 > ² (0.66) Depth: 6/22 00:00:02 238kN >1.b4 Nxc4 2.Qxa7 Bc6 3.Nd4 Bd5 4.Nf5 bxc5 5.Bxc5 Bxc5 6.bxc5 > ² (0.57) Depth: 7/23 00:00:04 589kN >1.Qa4 Bc6 2.Qb4 Bxc5 3.Qc3 Qe7 4.Bg4 > ² (0.61) Depth: 7/23 00:00:06 861kN >1.Qb4 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 bxc5 3.Qc3 f5 4.Ne5+ Kf8 > ± (0.79) Depth: 7/31 00:00:10 1495kN >1.Qb4 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 Rxc5 3.Rd6 Bxf3 4.exf3 > ± (0.86) Depth: 7/31 00:00:12 1726kN >1.Qb2 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 Rxc5 3.Rd6 Bxf3 4.exf3 > ± (0.89) Depth: 7/31 00:00:13 1972kN >1.Qc1 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 Rxc5 3.Rd6 Bxf3 4.exf3 > ± (0.93) Depth: 7/31 00:00:14 2193kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Qd2 d5 3.cxd5 Bxd5 4.Qc3 Qc7 > ± (0.82) Depth: 8/31 00:00:19 2944kN >1.Qb2 bxc5 2.Bf4 h5 3.Bd6 Rc6 4.Bxe7 Qxe7 > ± (0.83) Depth: 8/31 00:00:22 3376kN >1.Qb2 bxc5 2.Qd2 d6 3.Bf4 Qb6 4.Qd3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 > ± (0.87) Depth: 9/37 00:00:42 6700kN >1.Qb2 bxc5 2.Qd2 d6 3.Bf4 Rc6 4.Bxe6+ Kxe6 5.Qc3 > ± (0.73) Depth: 10/37 00:01:23 13096kN >1.Qb2 bxc5 2.Bf4 d6 3.Qd2 Rc6 4.Qc3 g5 5.Be3 Rc8 > ² (0.62) Depth: 10/37 00:04:04 38252kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 d6 3.Bc3 Be4 4.Qf4 f5 > ² (0.69) Depth: 10/37 00:04:27 41483kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 d6 3.Bc3 Be4 4.Qf4 Bxf3 5.exf3 f5 > ± (0.82) Depth: 11/37 00:07:35 70752kN >1.Qc1 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 Rxc5 3.Qd2 Bxf3 4.exf3 d5 5.Bxe6+ Kxe6 6.Qd4 > ± (0.82) Depth: 11/37 00:08:24 80351kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 Nc6 3.Bc3 Qc7 4.Qd2 d6 5.Qf4 e5 6.Qd2 Rb8 > ± (0.78) Depth: 12/37 00:16:29 166083kN >1.Rd2 Bxc5 2.Bxc5 Rxc5 3.Rfd1 d5 4.cxd5 Rxd5 5.Rxd5 exd5 > ± (0.79) Depth: 12/39 00:26:16 274572kN >1.Rd2 bxc5 2.Rfd1 d6 3.Bf4 Rc6 4.Bg2 Qc7 5.Rd3 Ra6 6.Qb2 e5 7.Bd2 > ± (0.81) Depth: 13/39 00:46:21 504811kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 Nc6 3.Bc3 Qc7 4.Qd2 Qxg3+ 5.hxg3 Nd4 > ± (0.92) Depth: 13/39 00:54:34 601587kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 Nc6 3.Bc3 Qc7 4.Qe3 Rhd8 5.Rd2 Rb8 6.Rfd1 Kg8 7.Bg2 > ± (0.94) Depth: 13/39 01:03:58 713444kN >1.Qc1 bxc5 2.Bd2 Nc6 3.Bxe6+ dxe6 4.Qc2 > ± (0.80) Depth: 14/39 01:50:02 1261026kN > >(Galati, ` 17.01.2001)
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.