Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 14:47:39 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 06:26:20, Chessfun wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 02:02:22, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>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. > > >In the SSDF database at Tony's Site I couldn't find this position but in >Chessbase online; > I have 9 wins for white and one win for black in my computergame base, including 2 games From Tony. 157000 computer games. 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.