Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 07:06:08 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 09:04:03, Uri Blass wrote:
>On November 16, 2003 at 06:08:59, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>
>>On November 16, 2003 at 05:34:31, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On November 16, 2003 at 04:47:15, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 15, 2003 at 19:29:52, Ziad Haddad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>If u see the chessbase homepage, u will see that in the last informator of
>>>>>chess, Karpov used a computer chess game between CT15-Shredder7 to comment his
>>>>>game. In fact Shredder has found a theoretical novelty.
>>>>
>>>>No, this is wrong the novelty was developped by our team, not by the program...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Talking about Junior, i must say that this program surprises me each time he
>>>>>plays, but he alternates the best and the worst. To tell do not use Junior to
>>>>>analyse Openings, i don't fully agree with this statement. Better say don't use
>>>>>it to analyse positional openings, but it's a suitable engine to analyse opened
>>>>>and tactical positions issued from the openings.
>>>>
>>>>You cannot expect computers to find novelties, at least in the early stage of
>>>>the game, these must come from human people that works on the book.
>>
>>Hi Uri,
>>
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>Because they cannot see deeply enough.
>>In middle game it would be different. Also theory has developed making many
>>games and thanks to correspondance chess also in many variations?
>>
>>
>>>If the engine is strong enough it should be able to find novelties.
>>
>>Ok, I would agree on this when the strenght of the programs would be at least
>>500 points higher than they are today.
>>
>>>Part of the new moves may be wrong but part of them should be better moves.
>>
>>Well, normally a novelty is worth if a set of correct following moves is
>>considered as well. If some are not good, than it would not work...or not?
Hi,
>
>
>I say that part of the new moves that they suggest may be good.
>
>Here is an example for a novelty that I played in a correspondence game at move
>13(preliminary XV olympiad Canada-Israel).
>
>Shredder7.ctg has only 13...Bb4 with ? and I could find no games with 13...Ne8
OK, after move 12th it could be that they find playble moves, it is difficult
after 5 or 6 moves; it is more likely after 18 or 20 moves...
>
>As far as I remember 13...Ne8 was suggested by at least one of my chess programs
>after a long search and it is possible that it was also suggested after a short
>time but I do not remember at this moment.
>
>The game is still not finished but
>My opponent blundered later at move 29(Fritz can play the same blunder after
>some minutes of search but not after more than it) and now I have a clear
>advantage(I will give the full game only after it is finished).
A good novelty is an improvement, if the opponent blunders it could be good for
one game only, so not an improvement..
>
>I am not sure if Ne8 is the best move and I do not claim to know the best move(I
>did not solve chess) but I have no reason to believe that it is worse than the
>theoretical move.
>
>
>[Event "correspondence"]
>[Site "Tel-Aviv"]
>[Date "2003.01.27"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Artur"]
>[Black "Uri"]
>[Result "*"]
>[ECO "E07"]
>[Annotator "Blass,Uri"]
>[PlyCount "74"]
>[TimeControl "40/2400:0/0:0/0"]
>
>{64MB, Shredder7.ctg, URI-PC
>} 1. c4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2.
>Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e6 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 3. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d5 4. d4 {
>[%emt 0:00:00]} Be7 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2 dxc4 7. O-O {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nbd7 8. e4 a6
>9. a4 Rb8 10. a5 b5 11. axb6 Nxb6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 12. Qe2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bb7
>{[%emt 0:00:04]} 13. Rd1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Ne8
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.