Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:07:31 06/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1998 at 03:00:38, Ed Schröder wrote: >I am still stand behind the Rxe6 principal. The fact Ferret and Crafty >played the game after 1.Rxe6 fxe6 is not very convincing to claim Rxe6 >loses. My point was not to produce a perfect continuation, my point was to show that programs that prefer it might not be able to win with it. At the time I did that, people were praising programs for playing this move in such and such a time, and racing to be "first" with this move, like they do with every tactical shot anyone ever publishes here. >Next, *IF* playing the position by 2 computers is a topic then it should >ALSO be played from the start position. After all white is a pawn down. If >black is able to defend he simply will win the game *TOO*. I did this a few days ago, the game was drawn in both cases. Mine played 1. Bh6 and Crafty played 1. Qd3. I think mine would have played 1. Qd3 if it had thought for more time, I was hoping to see it play this move, because I wanted to see if there was a point to it. So, in this case, both programs scored a 1/2 point more by not going nuts on e6, although to be fair, I didn't test to see if they'd actually play fxe6 after Rxe6, and this is a surprisingly hard move to find. I don't draw any "I told you so" conclusions from this, in case you're thinking that I do. >I picked another example to prove my point. Also a tactical one for >reasons of clearness. Rebel10 anti-GM is NOT about tactics but sometimes >it certainly has some nice side effects. I think it is about marketing, personally. It's kind of a "Rebel 10 -- now with more brighteners!" kind of thing. Who knows what a brightener is? I am not trying to get your secrets out of you, I think it is dubious to start a discussion of a feature without giving a little more detail about the feature, to do otherwise isn't to invite discussion of a computer chess topic, it's more to invite discussion of Rebel. How many lines of code is this feature, Ed? Does it only come into play when the program is down material? Does it get more correct on ECM? >I deliberately do not pick a positional example (although I personally >believe they are MUCH more important) because you can always argue >about the moves as we all have our different taste. So a pure tactical >example and this time there can be no confusion about the key-move. > >r2q1rk1/pbppn1p1/1p2p1Bp/7Q/3PN3/b1P5/P1PB1PPP/1R2R1K1 w - - bm Bxh6; > >This game fragment comes from the WCM Munich 1993, Hiarcs - Genius. > >Rebel10 (without anti-GM) finds Bxh6 on ply-7, score 1.19, time 0:27 >Rebel10 (with anti-GM) finds Bxh6 on ply-5, score 1.23, time 0:01 Cool example, but what is the purpose: 1) Let us discuss means of finding tactical shots. 2) Mine gets this faster now, but I won't talk about why. If point 2, then why bring up the subject? >Note that anti-GM is not about tactical tricks like extra extensions, >just some specific positional knowledge. So are you finding this stuff because the positional terms are slightly different and jostle your search a little bit? Are you finding them because the positional terms are *huge* and lead to speculative play? What is the subject of this thread? How do I contribute meaningfully? bruce
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.