Author: Christopher A. Morgan
Date: 06:52:47 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
Shredder 7 and Fritz 8 evaluate the position nearly the same at -0.47 and -0.44, respectively, while Junior 7 evaluates position on my computer at -0.05. Shredder 7 did not change analysis between 3 seconds and 3:35, analysis clip, last part, follows (Athlon 750, 96MB hash): New game r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b - - 0 1 Analysis by Shredder 7: 1...Bxb4 2.c3 3 (-0.39) Depth: 11/16 00:00:01 20kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 3 (-0.39) Depth: 12/18 00:00:01 40kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 3 (-0.39) Depth: 13/16 00:00:02 120kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 3 (-0.39) Depth: 14/17 00:00:03 204kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Ba5 3.Qb3 Qe7 4.d3 d6 5.Be3 Bb6 6.Bxb6 axb6 7.Bxf7+ Qxf7 8.Qe6+ Bxe6 3 (-0.47) Depth: 15/36 00:03:35 25453kN Fritz 8 (Version 8.0.0.8) did not change analysis between 24 seconds and 1:33. Last part of analysis clip follows: New game r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b - - 0 1 Analysis by Fritz 8: 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Be7 3.Kf1 Kf8 4.d4 d6 5.Be3 exd4 6.cxd4 Nf6 3 (-0.28) Depth: 10/26 00:00:02 620kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Be7 3.Kf1 Kf8 4.d4 d6 5.Nbd2 Nf6 6.Qb3 Qe8 3 (-0.34) Depth: 11/32 00:00:08 2228kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Be7 3.Kf1 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Ng4 6.cxd4 Kf8 7.Kg1 3 (-0.28) Depth: 12/33 00:00:24 7283kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Be7 3.Kf1 Kf8 4.d4 exd4 5.cxd4 Na5 6.Bd3 d5 7.Nbd2 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nc5 3 (-0.50) Depth: 13/40 00:01:33 29561kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Be7 3.Kf1 Kf8 4.d4 exd4 5.cxd4 Na5 6.Bd3 d5 7.Nbd2 dxe4 8.Nxe4 3 (-0.44) Depth: 14/42 00:02:47 53870kN For comparison purposes I also include Junior 7: New game r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b - - 0 1 Analysis by Junior 7: 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Bc5 3.Ba3 Qe7 4.Qa4 Nf6 5.Ng5 Rf8 6.Ke2 = (-0.08) Depth: 12 00:00:02 970kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Bf8 3.Na3 a6 4.h4 b5 5.Bb3 Bc5 6.Ke2 = (-0.08) Depth: 15 00:00:26 14317kN 1...Bxb4 2.c3 Bd6 3.d4 Qf6 4.Kf1 Nh6 5.Bg5 Qg6 6.Nbd2 f6 7.Bh4 = (-0.05) Depth: 17 00:02:14 70668kN On January 01, 2003 at 08:48:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >[D] r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq b3 0 4 > >The Evans Gambit, arising after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4, is a good >example of positional material sacrifice. By sacrificing his b pawn, white gains >a number if precious tempos, thus seizing the opening initiative. While the 4.b4 >gambit might not be better than the other 4th moves here, it usually reaches a >balanced position in which white has enough compensation for the sacrificed >pawn. > >Now let us see how the top engines evaluate this position. There is not much >tactics involved here, so this gives us a good opportunity to compare the >programs' evaluation (their chess knowledge). > >In the table below, the evaluation of each engine is recorded after 1 minute >analysis (since the evaluation is largely positional, no significant score >change was noticed from one ply to another, so most probably even deeper >searches will not change the result): > > >Engine Score >------ ----- >Junior 7 0.06 >Fritz 7 -0.41 >Shredder 6.02 -0.33 >Chess Tiger 14 -0.82 (Gambit Tiger 2 also produced the same score) >Hiarcs 8 -0.84 >Crafty 19.1 -0.81 > > >Interesting points: > > - Junior 7 was the only program who evaluated the position realistically. > > - Gambit Tiger 2 which is tuned for sacrificial play, did not evaluate > the position differently from Chess Tiger 14. > > - Hiarcs 8 which is said to incorporate the most chess knowledge, displays > the least chess understanding in this position! (Conclusion: more chess > knowledge does not necessarily mean better evaluation.) > >Omid. > >P.S. An analysis of Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 will be appreciated.
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.