Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:12:06 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 10:06:08, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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... Ok moves 5-6 are usually positions that were played hundreds of times so I also do not expect humans to have novelties there. The only cases when I may expect to find novelties are in cases that the line is very rare. > >> >>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 think that the position was equal before the blunder. I do not expect every novelty to win the game espacially when I am black. Uri
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.