Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:06:13 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 18:01:04, Moritz Berger wrote: >I took the liberty to analyze the game you posted here. > >1.b3 e5 2.h3 d5 seems slightly unusual and smells like a typical >computer killer opening, CSTal plays random moves out of its 520 MB book. I found that this throws many opponents early out of book. This helps cstal to create an attack in the middle-game. If both sides play 30 moves opening theory, there is often not enough material left to sac. Or to attack. It is very easy to throw opponents out of any kind of book, no matter how big the size of the book is. Just play a weak move, and ... of course this is a killer opening :-)))) continue dreaming... >the more interesting is the fact that a theme >from e.g. the QG Tarrasch defense (poised rook on a1 offered to a black >knight) became essential in this game. > >To offer the Ra1 was a very human move (and every human player would >have smelled the danger of playing Nc2 NxRa1). Maybe a bug in CSTal ? >;-) A bug in CSTal ? Why? Because it was a human move ? We - sorry - Chris designed it to play human moves... Human players would smell it. Fritz cannot smell. It is a stupid-weak chess-program, a typical result out of the bean-counter-paradigm, you forgot this little detail ? >Still I find it strange that you chose a game where Fritz plays 'as bad' >as every other program on this planet. The rook offer was a nice bug >(just kidding ;-)), but you promised to show us some really bad chess >from Fritz. I have a couple of Fritz 5 games here that are really bad >and might have been better to illustrate your point. The only issue I >take is that I can easily produce such games for *ALL* programs out >there. And then it's no bean counting for me if Fritz scores approx. 60% >in >1000 games vs. other top programs. Do you think i PRODUCED this game. Dream on. As I said I played it 2 days before. Thats the only reason i posted it. I stumbled over it... The game is ok since it shows a weakness of your new god:fritz. >You get good and bad moves from every program. How wise you and Enrique speak ! I have to write down this unique wise sentence in my diary, next to my unique wise Kohl quotes. I am sure ONE day somebody will say: how far enrique and moritz were in 1998. >I'm sure you agree. Indeed. I agree. I have to. > The >following mathematical theorem comes to my mind: Every sequence that >isn't absolutely convergent has a bijection to make it convergent to any >arbitrary number. Application: By picking good and bad moves (since >there are both kinds of moves) or good and bad games (sum of moves) I >can claim everything I want about any program. You misunderstand the sense of a discussion. The sense of a discussion is not your above point. In a real discussion (I told you before that discussion is not possible with people like you and enrique - and you above statement shows that I am right) the one sides try to understand and listen to the things the other side says. > That's why we can >continue forever with our little discussion as long as you refuse to >accept strong quantitative arguments instead (score in >1000 games at >40/120) and keep referring to 'secret autoplayer mumbo jumbo' etc. This >doesn't make a meaningful discussion easier to conduct for all >participants and to comprehend for our more and more bewildered 'silent' >audience. Moritz. You are unfair. It is obvious. You have the fritz autoplayer. Enrique has the Fritz autoplayer. You can generate 3 or 5 or even (using the nights) 9 times more data than I can do, using manually games. You misuse this little hidden parameter to avoke the false claim that CSTal loses against Fritz5 and Nimzo98. I will not allow you to post such an idiotic stuff without telling my point of view about it. Because I have these programs too you do have. Instead of discussing about content you and Enrique try to suggest here, that ">You get good and bad moves from every program." And you further claim that "> That's why we can >continue forever with our little discussion as long as you refuse to >accept strong quantitative arguments". You oversee that i have strong quantitive arguments against your claims. Of course I don't have the fritz5 autoplayer. And others (my friends) also have no special fritz5 autoplayer, like you and enrique. So you can always create more data than I can do. But if you misuse this advantage to spread your wrong data here, i will stand up and talk against it. If you believe this is a kind of game, and your words tell me you believe this is a kind of never-ending-story, you are wrong. This is above chess. And you want to make a kind of personal stuff about it. You started your post with the statement: ">I took the liberty to analyze the game you posted here." A few lines later you do NOT analyse the game, instead you start a personal discussion about the sense of this discussion. Your ideas about the stuff are wrong Moritz. Also your claims. You do not analyse the game. You try to spread fog (in the same way enrique does) by not telling about the game. Instead you try to fight a battle beside the chess-content. I would like you would concentrate on chess, or even computerchess. And not try to continue your religious kind of mantras a la ">You get good and bad moves from every program." "> That's why we can >continue forever with our little discussion as long as you refuse to >accept strong quantitative arguments". since these statements do only show that YOU believe that this is not about computerchess. >We could also talk about typical positions that Fritz doesn't understand >(e.g. certain endgames). But again: Lots of EPD positions instead of >very few PGN gamescores without search depth/evaluation or any comments >about keymoves serve this purpose much better. I hope you are able to >discuss on this level, instead of calling other people names and Example for my name calling ? I gave an example for a game. With weak tactics, and weak endgame. Instead you come again with EPD and metaphysical discussions about the sense of a discussion. Of course when I see your axioms and values in this discussion, i pretty well see that this way it makes no sense. But the problem is not with me, but with you and enrique. >treating them like ignorant idiots and implying sinistre motivations. ??? Zuviele Edgar-Wallace Filme gesehen ? >Lots of name-calling and unfair accusations has happend to you, too, on This is not the point of the discussion here. You wanted to analyse the game Moritz. Do you see where you end ? You are completely off topic now. You wanted to begin talking about computerchess, or even chess. And suddenly you talk about rgcc. >r.g.c.c. and you didn't exactly like it, as far as I remember ... Wrong. I don't like what Rolf did. He can name me all kind of things. But i don't like him to name Dirk, Moritz, Ed, Bob, etc. all kind of things. I never fought because I wanted him to stop attacking me. I have no reputation to lose. But I thought of Ed and others. The people I like. >Let's see what other programs might have played instead of the moves >Fritz played in the actual game: Ah ! You try to come back ON TOPIC. good ! >18.Ne4 is the final turning point where all programs need about 5 >minutes to prove that after Ne4 white is better (Fritz 5 after 257" fail >low (+= 0.44)). Here again Shredder's logfile (it doesn't even concede >white's superiority after Nxe4): > > 9 -> 0:25.74 +1.73 Nxe4 Re1 Nbc5 Nxd4 Ne6 Nxb5 Nxd6 Nbxd6+ Kf8 >Nxb7 Rb8 (1.477.180) >10.01 0:26.49 +1.48-- Nxe4 (1.520.708) >10.01 0:26.88 +0.98-- Nxe4 (1.545.865) >10.01 0:34.64 +0.79 Nxe4 Re1 Nbc5 Nxd4 Ne6 Rxe4 Qb1+ Kh2 Qa1 Nxe6 >(2.095.248) >10 -> 1:47.69 +0.79 Nxe4 Re1 Nbc5 Nxd4 Ne6 Rxe4 Qb1+ Kh2 Qa1 Nxe6 >(5.926.991) >11.01 1:51.86 +0.54-- Nxe4 (6.151.757) >11.01 2:16.06 +0.43 Nxe4 Re1 Nbc5 Nxd4 Ne6 Rxe4 Qb1+ Kh2 g6 Nxe6 >fxe6 Rxe6+ Kf7 (7.631.715) >11.06 5:33.98 +0.44++ Rd8 (18.208.020) Nxe4 is a weak move. I wonder why fast and strong tactical programs don't see this fast enough. I thought they are damned good in tactics (as you and your materialistic friends always want to suggest with your EPD-test-suites. It looks between theory and reality there is a difference:-))) BTW: shredder 2 is no fast-searching stupid program. Don't offend my friend Stefan. Otherwise I will tell him tomorrow that you called his baby a stupid fast-searcher. So shredder does not have to SEEE this FAAAAAAAST. Your faaaaast searchers have to be superior in these easy tactics. And this does not happen here. CSTal is better in this position, isn't it ? How nasty. I will tell chris to implement a materialist-prejudice button. You - as a materialist can klick on the button and CSTal will behave
This page took 0.01 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.