Author: Claude Le Page
Date: 03:00:37 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Kurt! I agree that statistical method is too heavy to get sure conclusions about settings; Now , there is an alternative method : one could name it "soft debugging" it is shorter in the sense that it needs much less games , but a deeper work: Some explanations I found , quite by chance , that many engines choose opening variations that theory considers as bad ; once it was sure that theory is right , this choice may be considered as a bug and a "better" setting wold induce a choice consistent with opening theory ; here are 2 examples: 1 Nimzoindian defence , Leningrad variation 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 c5 6 d5 most engines choose 6...Nxd5 7 Bxd8 Nxc3 8 Qb3 Ne4+ etc only the shredder and junior families , and the newest crafty make a more regular choice IMHO , a "good" setting must repair this bug 2 2 knights defence 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 most engines choose 5...Nxd5 there is a polemic about 6 Nxf7 , but after 6 d4 , Black is lost; often ,in correspondence games there is an attempt of rehabilitation but it is unsuccessful here too , a better setting must lead to choose Na5 , Nd4 , or b5 Without doubt , one should find plenty of examples of this sort Each time a bug of this kind is corrected , it leads to a more general improvement Of course , it happens that settings don't suffice : in this case ,more drastic changes are needed Friendly Yours Claude Le Page
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.