Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 00:03:11 06/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 23:17:01, Chessfun wrote: >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. I think it's not important which moves work and which don't. There are a lot of possibilities. For example in closed sicilian I think there are so many moves possible. You can't put everything in the book. Martin
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.