Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 09:14:36 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 10:12:06, Uri Blass wrote: >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. There are opening which have not been checked that much... > >The only cases when I may expect to find novelties are in cases that the line is >very rare. Well, this is true, but not 100% > >> >>> >>>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. OK, the novelty should improve the line either giving an advantage or removing the disadvantage.. > >Uri Sandro
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.