Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:54:24 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 21:45:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 21:01:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>>So you _think_ that is why the computer took the pawn? Rather than just >>>"taking a pawn?" BTW most programs would have played that move. Do you think >>>they _all_ understood what was going to come down that file as a result of >>>their _voluntarily_ opening it up to win a pawn??? >>> >>>I don't. At least not mine... >> >>I don't quite see the relevance of your this. >>You gave Nxg4 as an example of a horrible move, I argued that its not a horrible >>move. I guess you still think Nxg4 is horrible? If so, we agree to differ. > > >I think that in general principle, Nxg4 is _bad_. If it _happens_ that it is >the >best move here, so be it, but I'd bet that a program thinks that black is >better, >and that's wrong. I bet that it does not think that black is better. Even an old version(Junior7) gives advantage for white. My program(Movei) also gives a small advantage for white and likes Nxg4. Nxg4 does not win a pawn because white takes the h7 pawn so I see no reason to think that programs evaluate black as better. It is possible that the program planned other things against g4 but understood later that they are bad. Saying that the program played bad only because of the fact that it got bad position is wrong. programs are not perfect but against kasparov even GM's can get a bad position in the opening. If the program played the opening like 2500 and the rest of the game like 2900 then I think that it is not wrong to say that it played like a super GM. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.