Author: Mike Castañuela
Date: 13:27:59 08/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 1998 at 12:45:27, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >I forgot to mention the role of the chess program(s) > >On TV Matthias Wuellenweber was asked for Fritz evaluations from time to time. > >At the same time I used other Chessbase engines and Rebel for analyzing crucial >positions. > >In general Fritz as well as the other programs judged positions well, in some >cases perhaps even suggesting better tactical moves than were played. > >At the same time it was obvious how the prgrams struggeled to evaluate >strategical positions correctly. For example they couldn't resist to propose 13. >Bxe4?, winning a pawn and getting terrible long term trouble on the white >squares. I am convinced that such a move would lead to a terrible loss against a >strong human player. Most engines/programs were good enough to see some >positional compensation for black after taking on e4, but not enough (with >varying degrees from program to program) > Genius5 prefers quickly 13. Bf1, but 2 moves later, after repositioniong the bishop at g2, prefers the same change Axe4; however there are differences in the position, if 13. Axd3 de 14 Qxe4 Nc5 that is the move that posses problems to white; if 13. Af1 Qh5 14. Ag2 Nb6 Nb6 15. Axe4 etc, but if 14 ...Nc5 (trying transposition) Genius refuses 15. Axe4 y prefers 0-0. >On the other hand the programs found the strong move 20.f6 nearly immediately >while the GMs were seriously debating the rather weak alternative 20.Bf4. >Typical human: protect your pawn before considering the tactical possibility of >indirect protection by sharp attack... > >Perhaps some of you can comment on how your programs judged the crucial >positions and if they find strong alternatives or blunders... > >Kind regards >from Dirk
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.