Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:44:28 02/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2001 at 04:11:36, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 01, 2001 at 03:48:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >Dear Uri, > >>On February 01, 2001 at 02:20:33, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >> >><snipped> >>>No, maybe I did not clearly explain what I meant. I said that a friend of mine, >>>testing the program regardless of the opening book, said that it was 100 points >>>better than Fritz 6a. So it was not the book making it stronger, but the engine >>>being stronger. >> >>My impression about the engine is different. >> >>I used ahredder5 for a long time to analyze positions from my correspondence >>games when I was in theory. >>If the engine is 100 elo better than I expect it to find good moves in the >>opening without opwning book. > >I think that to expect PCs chess programs "to make theory" is wrong. The horizon >effect should create a lot of problems on this matter. it really depends on the >positions. In some program A should do better than program B and viceversa. Sorry to fall into this discussion but the word horizon effect is no longer valid. If you get a real small search depth like 6 or 8 ply then you might refer to horizon effect, but we talk about depths of like 13 ply and more here to start with knowing Uri that's the minimum depth he let the progs analyze. I'm sure Shredder at so many hours a move gets a bit more as 13 also. Horizon effect is no longer valid then, as that would mean that you assume everything is horizon effect till the game is solved by search which is quite hard on todays pc's More valid is the term preprocessor + lack of knowledge. >> >>I found that shredder suggested me a stupid sacrifice and only after many hours >>the score went down and it converge to the theory move Re1. >> >>Here is the opening in my correspondence game against yoav dothan(I am white) >> >>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 > >Even if this is probably the best move, I think for Shredder 5. Bd3 should be >better after some moves. I know that the program evaulation is better for Nc3, >but it is important the program position understanding after some moves... > >Qc7 6.Be2 b5 7.0-0 Bb7 >> >>I gave Shredder5 to analyze this position for a long time and it needed many >>hours to avoid the bad sacrifice 8.e5 >>It changed it's mind to Re1 that is the theory move only after many hours. > >This confirms what I said before. if the position is understood by the program >the program would find the correct moves easily. >> >>I analyzed 8.Re1 when there is an interesting line 8.Re1 b4 9.Nd5. >>I can also sacrifice a pawn by 9.Na4 >> >>I did not get a clear consequence about the sacrifices and I decided after a >>long think to play 8.a3 and not to sacrifice a pawn or a knight(the game >>continued 8...Nf6 9.Qd3 d6 10.Bg5 and it is yoav to move). >> >>One of the reason that I decided not to sacrifice is the fact that my opponent >>does not have to accept and I assume in my correspondence games that my opponent >>will probably play the best move. > >Yes, you are correct. >> >>It means that if I evaluate that b4 has 50% chance to win and 50% chance to lose >>my chances are smaller than 50% because I assume that my opponent will play b4 >>with probability of more than 50% if it wins and will not play it with >>probability of more than 50% if it loses. > >I agree, but what is best to play is also what will bring you to a position >which will suite your style or positions where you can play at your top strenght >and not only a general % score. >I understand this is not easy to explain and this is why one never stops to >learn... >> >>Uri > >Sandro
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.