Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:48:46 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 12:21:25, Hristo wrote:
>On March 15, 2001 at 06:35:19, Dan Andersson wrote:
>
>>I checked out crafty in this position and it doesn't have a clue. In general I
>
>while I was sleeping you changed the subject! ;-)
>I use crafty as a tool, mighty stable, mighty powerful and in "some" cases
>mighty-ou'-of-clue ... Bottom line, crafty is awesome tool and that is
>why I use it. Set it in analysis mode and make the moves you think are correct
>while making sure that crafty doesn't rise a red flag (tactics).
>Do this several times to get a feel of the postition. Then pick one of the
>variations and let crafty make a few moves on its own, basic sanity check.
>Then repeat all of the above until happy. Using crafty as low-pass filter
>you get to concentrate only on the long term stuff ... ;-)
>
>
>Getting back to the original topic.
>Do you think that white are worst in this position?!
>
>
>hristo
No, I think there is no way White is worst, though that doesn't mean that it can
be handled just any old way. JC went so far as to declare Black was winning and
I looked at it (no computers) and just can't agree with that assessment at all.
White to move and I'm lost?? I don't think anyone is winning, but certainly
think that in the long run, if White avoids playing anything stupid, White will
be better, though I don't claim anything more than that. Computer eval is being
quite dogmatic here IMO, but heck, they're computers after all.
:-) In our challenge, I proposed we use computers to avoid any possibility of
accusations, and also as the reason isn't about him or me, but the truth of the
position. If he were to blunder or I were to blunder then we will have failed to
answer the question about the position.
Albert
>
>
>>think crafty is bad in the opening phase its real strenght lies in the smooth
>>transitions between opening/middlegame and middlegame/endgame as I seldom
>>observe huge differences in evaluation there. IMO it is very conservative in its
>>design and evaluation. I see it as the new Tech program, and any truly great
>>program will have to beat it convincingly i.e take twice as many points in a
>>long match.
>
>Matches are useful when trying to determine who's better!?
>I was just analysing this position. Sorry if I made it sound as if
>I using a match to analyze.
>
>
>regards.
>hristo
>
>>
>>Regards Dan Andersson
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.