Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:02:02 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 00:03:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 20, 2003 at 22:45:43, Mark Young wrote: > >>On December 20, 2003 at 22:21:22, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>> >>>I think this poster committed an ergo propter hoc fallacy. >>>Why should it be surprising that Kasparov's analysis comports with Shredder's >>>analysis? We should actually be surprised if the opposite were true-- >> >>You need to read my statement again. I said Shredder found shots that Kasparov >>missed. And the computer seems to be correct. This is what I found surprising >>and made me take notice, but the computer is far from perfect. > >The one thing they all miss is some human-like commentary. IE programs >that try to insert text messages into the commentary look like a room full >of monkeys with a typewriter. They produce something that looks sensible >on a quick look, but when you read it carefully, it is just "static". > >Computers are very good at giving scores and variations. But there ability >to say "of course not Nxf3?? as that hangs the queen to this five-move threat:" >and the like... > >IE I have seem some really comical comments from Chessmaster, when it attempts >to do just this... Chessbase is not like Chessmaster when giving full analysis. I know what you mean about chessmaster, thats why I never really looked at this feature in chessbase. Chessbase is much more in the style of chess Informant with not much text at all. Very easy for us "old school" chess players to read and understand as written text. Chessbase stays mostly with what computers are good at as you pointed out above, but it will show you "of course not Nxf3?? and why. I will give an example below. [Event "16"] [Site "London m4 ;HCL 18"] [Date "1834.??.??"] [Round "62"] [White "Macdonnell A"] [Black "De Labourdonnais L"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B32/06"] [Annotator "Shredder 7.04 (180s)"] [PlyCount "74"] [EventDate "1834.??.??"] [d]3b1r1k/3P2pp/8/p7/2Q1p3/8/PP1p1pPP/2R1qR1K w - - 0 34 34.Qc5 [34.Rfxe1?? is not to be advocated because of the following mate in 2 fxe1Q+ 35.Rxe1 dxe1Q+ 36.Qf1 Qxf1#] Chessbase analysis of move 34 Macdonnel - De Labourdonnais 1834. Chessbase is saying it agrees with 34. Qc5 as the best move and give a simple "trap" to be avoided. This is just a quick example to address the point you made above.
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.