Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 23:02:22 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 18:11:59, Amir Ban wrote: >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 ? Ok sorry for this. I have never heard of anyone, human or program that easily wins over in example Fritz or Tiger with cheap tactics and then dumps the program or version. > >Some of your top SSDF programs are not very good positionally, even relative to >other programs. Compare Fritz, Shredder, Tiger and Junior, 4 of the best programs. Which programs are weak positionally and which programs are better than them positionally. Tactics don't come right from the air it comes from the position and sometimes the book. >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" He wasn´t impressed of a program that was superior in the most popular opening in the world. He wasn´t impressed of the result 60 % against one of the best engines in the world?! > >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. Ok he wasn't confused, he was schocked both in game 3 and 5. Bxh2 was probably a positional mistake but the tactics was so complicated that he was afraid of them. If you had played another top-program I believe all odds are on white. That is exactly what everyone means, that castling right in to the attack are a bad positional move, it is cheap tactics if you can survive in a bad position. Maybee you have another definition of positional play than everyone else. > >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. Many have played out this line and the results clearly favors white. White was better. I believe almost everyone believes white was clearly better but missed tactically. > > >>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. If so it seems that this is the only point i´m wrong. Bertil
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.