Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:47:30 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 22:39:43, Serge Desmarais wrote: >On August 28, 1998 at 22:14:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 28, 1998 at 21:14:20, Serge Desmarais wrote: >> >>>On August 28, 1998 at 20:52:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On August 28, 1998 at 19:17:15, Moritz Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>The explanation is very simple: I only started using Junior after August 21st. >>>>>At least that's the arrival date of the Junior 5 executable in my email inbox... >>>>> >>>>>My results on ICC since then were >>>>> >>>>>70: + 2645 W 2726 Data [ br 5 4] B35 Res Aug 28 98 15:53 >>>>>69: = 2623 B 2748 Data [ br 5 4] C51 Rep Aug 28 98 15:36 >>>>>68: + 2617 W 2523 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B17 Res Aug 21 98 19:18 >>>>>67: = 2604 B 2536 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B40 Agr Aug 21 98 18:55 >>>>>66: + 2607 W 2533 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] D48 Mat Aug 21 98 18:41 >>>>>65: + 2593 B 2531 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B40 Mat Aug 21 98 16:20 >>>>>64: + 2578 W 2546 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] C19 Mat Aug 21 98 15:45 >>>>> >>>>>and one game that I courtesyadjourned at Crafty's request in a +3.5 (J5)position >>>> >>>>1. Junior is very strong. >>>>2. XXXX-2 is * not * a Crafty. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>Though Data IS. :) >>> >>> >>>Serge Desmarais >> >> >>Not exactly.. Data is a bad example, generally. The guy running it >>(B.T. Fraise) has it playing mostly gambit-type openings, which are very >>good against humans, but dangerous against computers. IE it will play >>the Evans as white most every time if you give it a chance.... That is >>the *wrong* type of opening to play against computers, generally, if *you* >>are a computer.. :) > > > > That is true that computers are sometimes confused when out of book while >being down materially. I have seen programs that, after playing a gambit were >thinking that the opponent had the advantage (though quite small) while THEY had >the upper hand, but had invested some material in the opening. And then, >suddenly, their eval would start to increase as nasty threats could be >generated! > >Serge Desmarais the real problem is to be a pawn down, with a nice lead in development, and then suddenly find a way to win a pawn but give up the positional advantage in doing so... then it ends up left with a ragged position, maybe equal material, and loses the endgame in a slow grind... Or, if you remember the DB vs Kasparov game 6, an IM tried that position against a couple of the top commercial programs last year, with the IM playing black, and he won all games easily. Because the programs would invariably find a way to "cash in" and get a little material back, but black ends up a piece ahead and the win is easy if white's attack fizzles. This is what makes playing such openings so very difficult.. As a human, when attacking, after tossing a pawn or even a piece, I'm not looking to win a pawn (or the piece) *back*... I am looking for much more... something programs often don't grasp... But one day, maybe they will.. the thing that helps is great search depth, so that it can "keep the win of material in sight" but still carry on the attacking plan... I've seen much better results as depth has increased. In the old days, doing 6-7 plies, such problems were serious, because that's not much horizon to both win material *and* keep up the attack. At today's 10-12 plies, the programs can do better. But not as good as they will at 15-16-18 plies in the future...
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.