Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:51:07 08/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2002 at 00:57:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 12:12:49, Tim Foden wrote: > >>2rq1rk1/pb3ppp/1p2p3/n7/3PP3/3B1N2/P2Q1PPP/3RR1K1 w - - bm d5; c0 " pv d5 exd5 >>e5 - piece activity"; > >Rc1 0.40/9,0.35/10 > >After d5 >Movei suggest exd5 exd5 0.00/9,0.04/10,0.29/11 > >After d5 exd5 e5 movei says Nc4 0.75/10,0.78/11 > >It seems that the line that is suggested is bad because it simply lose a pawn >for no compensation. > >Movei evaluates mobility and it see no compensation. I think that what you're trying to say here is that neither you nor your program are good enough to _see_ the compensation. After the line white is winning. An example continuation is Nc4 Qf4 Nb2 Bxh7 Kxh7 Ng5+ Kg6 h4 Does movei see here that white is won? >I suspect that most of the positions are not correct. >I expect programs to do better with more time in a good positional test suite. > >If this is not the case it means that the test is bad. a) It's not because your program is not smart enough to solve the positions that they're incorrect. They may not all be correct, but your claim that some of them are incorrect just because your program doesn't solve them is by far one of the most ludicrous I have ever seen here. b) If you don't have the right knowledge, more time will help very little in a pure positional set. c) Some of the positions included are insanely hard. This is why I said that you shouldn't take the test too serious. I think all positional testsuites are bull, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them. -- GCP
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.