Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:25:01 11/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2001 at 03:13:00, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On November 26, 2001 at 22:58:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Try some games. Like the famous Shirov sacrifice, and see where the program >>thinks white goes wrong. Those are the kinds of positions that are important >>to the discussion. If the problem is only detected one move late, that can >>be fixed by 10x more search time. It is the ones that are much deeper that >>cause the problems... > >Well, yeah, I'm sure you can find examples of "deep" mistakes, but that doesn't >disprove the existence of less-deep mistakes. (Duh.) I imagine the deepness of >mistakes varies roughly with playing strength, so back-to-front analysis might >not often be a benefit for GM games but help out a 2000 a lot... > >-Tom Deep mistakes are _common_ from a computer's perspective. You might think they are "tactically supreme" but there are _lots_ of endgame positions where they are clueless. And any time you reach such a position, where either it is (commonly) a long-range kingside attack (or less commonly) a deep endgame tactic, you get random reports. I simply personlly don't like anything "random" when somebody/something is supposed to be telling me where I went wrong.
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.