Author: Mike Hood
Date: 09:58:54 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 01:02:02, Mark Young wrote: >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. You're right, Mark, Fritz and his brothers do give good human-sounding commentary in short games. The problem is when the games are longer. Then the comments begin to sound repetitive.
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.