Author: Howard Exner
Date: 22:13:39 05/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1998 at 20:18:55, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 06, 1998 at 16:03:32, Mark Young wrote: > >>Im sorry to say, but the reason nobody seems to care is that CSTAL is a >>weak program. Yes the program has its good points. But when you look at >>the whole program it does not play strong chess. It does not play well >>against strong humans or computers. The only reason I know that people >>like it is because it does play a human style and the program is >>beatable. >> >>I think CSTAL is a bold step in computer chess programing. I hope the >>program will keep getting better. > >It has kept getting better. Look from where is started. The predecessor >is still in the list, Complete Chess System. > >Also I cannot share your opinion. >I don't think it is weak.I also do not think it cannot COMPETE against >"brute-force" or fast-searchers. In Paris it did well, using >fast-hardware like the others. It competed good against Dark Thought and >others. >It sacced some games unsound. But this was the intention when we >designed CSTal, that is should sac. Otherwise we would have named it >CSPetrosian or whatever. > >IMO it showed good playing strength ALTHOUGH it sacced ! > >You have to understand that Chris is changing the engines faster than >you can test them. >If you test them and he produces almost ONE engine each day, you have to >speed up to understand WHAT cstal is. It is moving any day. Forwards, >backwards. >But I do not believe it is a loser. My results speak against this. >How can it kill genius (championship 1993 paderborn) and be a loser ? >How can it kill junior (championship 1993 paderborn) and be a loser ? > >In the moment e.g. the winning position in the autoplayer game vs. >genius on my 200 Mhz machines develops from a 1-0 into a 1/2 by >repetition. This is still a draw. And I am sure there is nothing bad >with those games, here it is BTW: > >[Event "60/60"] >[Site "k6/200 Mhz "] >[Date "????.??.??"] >[Round "1"] >[White "Genius5"] >[Black "CSystem Tal"] >[Result "1/2-1/2"] > >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 >8. c3 >O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 Nc6 13. dxc5 dxc5 14. Nf1 >Be6 15. >Be3 Rad8 16. Qc1 Nh5 17. a4 b4 18. Ng5 Bxg5 19. Bxg5 f6 20. Be3 b3 21. >Bd1 Nf4 >22. Bxf4 exf4 23. Be2 c4 24. Nd2 Ne5 25. Nf3 Nxf3+ 26. Bxf3 Qe5 27. Rd1 >Rd3 28. >Rxd3 cxd3 29. Qd2 Rd8 30. Ra3 a5 31. Ra1 Qg5 32. Kf1 Rd6 33. Ra3 Qe5 34. >Kg1 >Kf8 35. Kf1 Bc4 36. Kg1 g5 37. Ra1 Rd8 38. Ra3 Kg7 39. Kh2 Kg6 40. Ra1 h5 41. Re1 Rg8 42. Kh1 Kh6 43. Kh2 g4 44. Bd1 Kh7 45. f3 gxh3 46. Kxh3 h4 47. Kh2 Qg5 48. Kh1 Qg3 49. Rf1 Rg5 50. e5 h3 51. gxh3 Rh5 52. Qg2 Rxh3+ 53. Kg1 Qh4 54. Rf2 Rg3 55. exf6 Rxg2+ 56. Rxg2 Qe1+ 57. Kh2 Qxd1 These moves from 38 on are what I played as black against Rebel 8 (K6-233 giving Rebel exactly 60 seconds per move). I did this because I like black's position here on move 38 very much. White is in a big bind and I reasoned, "if only I could get a pawn break on the kingside". I've struggled over the years to improve my game and eventually picked up the idea to try to maximize the placement of pieces before the final pawn break. I realize computers do not plan moves like this but as their search becomes deeper some of these strategic ideas get "discovered". As reported by others in this group this strategy of building an attack behind the lines is a good anti-computer one (especially in this case where white had so little space to manoevre). >38. Ra3 Kg8 39. Kh1 Qe6 40. Kg1 >Kf8 41. >h4 h6 42. Kf1 gxh4 43. Kg1 Qe5 44. Ra1 Rd7 45. Rb1 Rg7 46. Kh2 Qg5 47. >Rh1 Kg8 >48. Kg1 Rd7 49. Kh2 Kf8 50. Kg1 Rd6 51. Kh2 Be6 52. Rc1 Qe5 53. Ra1 Ke7 >54. Ra3 >Qg5 55. Ra1 h5 56. Rg1 h3 57. gxh3 Qh4 58. Bg2 f3 59. Bf1 Qxe4 60. Kh1 >Bf7 61. >c4 Bg6 62. c5 Rd5 63. c6 Rc5 64. c7 Kf7 65. Qxa5 Rxa5 66. c8=Q Ra7 67. >Qb8 Rb7 >68. Qd6 Bh7 69. a5 Qe5 70. Qd8 Qb5 71. a6 Rd7 72. Qa8 Qa4 73. Qh8 Bg6 >74. Rxg6 >Kxg6 75. Bxd3+ Rxd3 76. Qg8+ Kh6 77. Qh8+ Kg6 78. Qg8+ Kh6 1/2-1/2 > >Anything wrong with games like this, despite the fact that CSTal was >unable to win it (we are heavily working on this problem, how to win the >winning positions.) ? Gary might have resigned around move 72 as white :-)
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.