Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:18:04 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 01:46:15, martin fierz wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 00:40:04, Peter Kappler wrote: > >> >>I think that the 1.5 pawn threshold you guys have chosen is going to generate a >>lot of false positives: >> >> - sacrifices that Crafty (or any computer) can't understand >> - Kramnik choosing to win a rook instead of mating in 9 >> - sacrifices that probably aren't completely sound, but >> are perfectly reasonable in human vs human play > >absolutely. the idea is of course that we are checking these games, not just >trusting crafty's 1second analysis. of the 184 games, crafty let 117 go >unannotated. i will look at all the remaining games with fritz, and judge for >myself if the positives are false or not (hint: they are false, most of the >time, for exactly the reasons you list). > > >>are scrutinized by players all over the world. If he had made a blunder of that >>magnitude (missing a 1-ply tactic when not in time trouble) it would have >>already been published. >i totally agree. it's something i wrote here before, but some people here don't >understand just how extraordinary this move was :-) > >aloha > martin \ I am re-running the annotation at 30 seconds per move, to see what deeper searches show up. I already notice some "different" blunders, if they are "really blunders" of course. But the depth is significantly deeper, so that a lot of the false blunders ought to go away (although a smaller number of new ones should be added, since going deeper will see some things that going still deeper will refute, and vice versa.). I will post this .can file when it finishes, but it has been running since last night and is still trucking along...
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.