Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:01:39 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 12:33:25, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 06, 2002 at 11:44:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 06, 2002 at 11:11:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On April 06, 2002 at 10:31:06, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On April 06, 2002 at 05:03:29, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I am one of those ignorant people that have some doubts about the true strength >>>>>of the programs ;) >>>>>Let me explain why... >>>>>We all agree that in tactics nothing beats the computers, but how good are they >>>>>at the positional level? >>>> >>>>Not to be boring, but I would like to stress that tactics is way more important >>>>in chess than positional knowledge for winning purposes I mean... >>> >>>Maybe it is an irrelevant example, but my little engine is now seeing two plies >>>deeper than the previous versions. I have been playing matches against TSCP and >>>Ozwald043, it has a good positive score, so in engine-engine matches is now >>>clearly stronger. >>>However I have done nothing about the evaluation, and all you have to do, is to >>>wait for it to castle, sacrifice a few pawns so you have a clear shot at its >>>king, and you can just roll it over! >>>Point is, it is not playing any stronger against humans as far as I can tell, >>>humans just go for the king, and it doesn't begin to defend itself until it's >>>within its horizon, which is often too late. >> >>I disagree >>if it can see 2 ply deeper then it is stronger against humans. >> >>Not all the humans just go for the king and even if they do it they can expect >>better defence. > >Try playing on the servers, humans have a way of simplifying things, they break >up the h-file and go for the mate :) >It has been hovering in the 1650-1700 range constantly, I couldn't help but >smile when I saw this game today: > >[Event "Xboard"] >[Site "FICS"] >[Result "0-1"] >[Date "04/06/02"] >[White "ChessCraft v.113"] >[Black "FRATERANTONIUS"] >[WhiteElo "1679"] >[BlackElo "1258"] >[PlyCount "39"] >[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"] >[TimeControl "5+0"] >1.d4 d5 >2.c4 c6 >3.cxd5 cxd5 >4.Nf3 f5 >5.Nc3 e6 >6.e3 a6 >7.Bd3 Nc6 >8.O-O Nf6 >9.Qa4 Bd6 >10.Bd2 O-O >11.Nb5 Bxh2 >12.Kxh2 Bd7 >13.Nd6 Ng4 >14.Kg1 Rf6 >15.Nxb7 Qe8 >16.Nc5 Qh5 >17.Nxd7 Rh6 >18.Nh4 Qxh4 >19.Nf6 gxf6 >20.Qxc6 Qh1++ > >That's how you do it, and he was only 1258! :) I did not look in the second game but only in this game White blundered by 17.Nxd7 I doubt if black could practically win the game after a better defence like 17.Rc1 that I expect my program to find even when 1 minute for the rest of the game is left. It finds 17.Rc1 at depth 7 inspite of the fact that my program does not have good extensions. It needs less than 2 seconds to see the evaluation of mate against itself on pIII800 and it is enough to convince it to calculate until it finds 17.Rc1. >>>The top programs probably have this snag fixed, but there might be other similar >>>weaknesses that one can find. >>>It takes some time and elo to find these, but I bet there are >>>openings/middelgames/endings that computers in general play weaker than others, >>>it is a matter of "research". >> >>There are also opening and middlegame that known humans players play weaker and >>it is a matter of research and I believe that if 2400 players are going to buy >>gulko and play against him in order to find his weaknesses then Gulko is going >>to get bad results against humans. > >But the humans do prepare special openings against each other, they seem >ignorant about exploting the programs the same way. They have a lot of opponents and if they cannot use a lot of time to prepare for one opponent then it is going to be unfair if they do it only against the computers. They should have the same motivation to prepare against the computers and against humans. Uri
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.