Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:53:54 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 17:47:39, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 My SSDF database is only 16600 games. Anyway I can get your computergame base? Sarah.
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.