Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:17:01 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 18:22:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 27, 2001 at 17:22:18, Chessfun wrote: > >>On June 27, 2001 at 17:13:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2001 at 17:04:37, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2001 at 13:24:45, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 13:09:56, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 27, 2001 at 12:45:24, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I post only my fantastical games....and "I'm happy"! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ok.? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Best wishes, >>>>>>>Eduard >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Eduard, >>>>>>Hi Mark, >>>>>>I think that Eduard discovering about weak points or "bad moves" can be very >>>>>>helpful for the chess programs developers community because they can learn the >>>>>>lesson and fix the weak points of the programs, like in this case Shredder. >>>>>>So I think that the contribution of Eduard is welcome as a "tester" of the >>>>>>computer creatures. >>>>> >>>>>The programs have the weaknesses at the time controls he is playing at, but so >>>>>what, this is not news to any programmer. >>>> >>>>Rubbish. Programs have the weaknesses at all time controls. >>> >>>Not exactly the same. >> >>Not exactly the same more weaknesses but they have weaknesses. >> >>>Program have weaknesses at all time control but I proved that at least one of >>>his games with Na3 could not be won at tournament time control. >> >>No you proved simply that at a specific more juncture the program >>would play a different move, that's a totally different thing altogether. > >You are right but it seems to me that after Kg8 instead of going forward with >the king Eduard could not win. > >I did not prove that he could not win by the same line but this was my >impression. Then that was what you should have posted instead of what you posted. >> >>>I am sure that in more games programs may play better and I simply did not check >>>it. >> >>As the human also has a right to play better. >> >>>> >>>>>He is playing tricks, do it over the board at 40/2 under tournament conditions. >>>>>He can't do it, unless he knows the programs book, but if you change the way the >>>>>program played a slight bit he would be lost again. For Eduard to win, he must >>>>>expolit the computer openness. >>>> >>>>What are you talking about? have you even bothered to look at any of his games?. >>>>The programs are out of book at move 2. So what's the book got to do with >>>>anything?. >>> >>>At tournament conditions the programmer can change the book and Eduard is not >>>going to have a possible way to get the program out of book at move 2. >>> >>>The number of positions after 2 moves is big enough and it is possible to have >>>some replies in book against 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 and every short bad line of white. >> >>The only way is for these type of oddity openings being booked and that >>isn't the case with current commercial programs. There are many other lines >>that take a program out of book and to make lines for them all is almost >>impossible. >> >>Sarah. > >It can be done automatically by the program. > >I remember that someone posted here that the shortest way to get his program out >of book was to sacrifice material. > >It was something like 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 d5 3.cxd6 e5 > >something like 1.d4 c6 2.c4 a6 does not work. Whatever try h4 or a4 they both work. Sarah.
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.