Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:11:59 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 15:38:32, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 09:13:04, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 01:36:07, Bertil Eklund wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2003 at 13:54:21, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>>>"Boris Alterman dismissed a version that won big against a well-known SSDF star >>>>as being based on nothing more than cheap tactics, and recommended a version >>>>based on a match that it actually lost". >>>> >>> >>>This is of course absolute nonsense and probably a pure lie. Of course it is >>>only a way to say that it is weaker then the other top-engines and we hope to >>>sell it on the merits of the Kasparov match. >>> >>>Bertil >> >>What makes you say that ? >> >>Amir > >Everyone knows that today it is impossible to beat a top-program with "nothing >more than cheap tactics". In example Nimzo, Gandalf and Ruffian are tactically >at the same level or better than Shredder but Shredders better positional play >makes it a clearly better program. Of course you could be right if you mean that >the matches was two, four or six games. > That makes me a liar ? Some of your top SSDF programs are not very good positionally, even relative to other programs. GM Alterman's assessment was based on 150 games against 3 opponents. One of the results was 30-20. He said: "it only beat *** because of sheer tactics" "It can play only one opening - the Sicilian" "I'm not impressed by the results and do not like the games" I dumped that version. >I also believe you are wrong about your strange idea that Junior are >positionally at the same level as Super-GMs. The interesting thing with Junior >are that it plays sharp and many times strange moves that really can confuse >humans. > What you call "sharp & strange moves" are positional decisions. They are not based on search. Moves like a5 in game 4 against Kasparov and Bxh2+ in game 5 are based on evaluation. If you think getting pawns & pieces for free, or even a careless pawn move, confuse Kasparov or any other GM you are wrong. They turn gifts into wins with ease. In some positions Junior's understanding of a position does not match a GM's, but in others it understands better than most GM's. In the 3rd game in NY it showed a better understanding when defending the position than the opponent, and that's why it eventually won. >I also don´t understand the choice of openings in the match. In the first game >b6 are a known loser against that variation, 9 to 1 in my computer gamebase. >Black is already a move after and plays a non-move like b6. >Next time with black you try the same idea, including castling right into the >attack. Knight takes g4 was probably the right decision after the risky castling >.If not Junior had been better in tactics than the white side in this game it >should have been another loss. If Junior had been black against a known >SSDF-star in that game it had lost. > I believe you are wrong about this too, but here you will be able to check for yourself soon. Amir
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.