Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 18:57:28 12/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1998 at 15:58:39, Laurence Chen wrote: >In the past post I have been trying to point that CM uses static features as a >way to measure and evaluate the position. Some of you scorned at my post saying >that it is not so, either because you don't know what static features mean. If >you don't then I recommend you to get a copy of Silman's book How to Reassess >Your Chess, 3rd Edition, or Simple Chess by Michael Stean. Now the debate about >that CM is the strongest engine is a open one, I simply don't care to own the >strongest engine per say, I would be happy with a chess engine which is in the >top 10 of the SSDF list. I've been using CM since the first one came out, CM >2000, and one of the things I noticed in that engine is that it uses static >features of chess position to evaluate the position. There is nothing wrong with >that, without the exception that not all chess positions can be measured in that >way. Some of you CM supporters have claimed that CM analyses the position >accurated because you people believes that CM is the strongest engine and >concluded that it must be so. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It seems to me that we are >going back to the time of Tarrasch and Nimzowitch, the classical school vs. the >dynamic school of thought. CM plays very much like the classical school, and >that was what I tried to point out that such a style is "boring" and "dry" to >me. Like everybody else, everyone has its own likes and dislikes. I prefer chess >positions which are dynamic in nature, and I find that CM is weak in making >assessments in such types of positions. As an example take a look at the >following position, I give you the game moves. >1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 >9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3 c5 13. d5 Qb6 14. Bg2 O-O-O 15. >O-O b4 16. Na4 Qb5 17. a3 Nb8 18. axb4 cxb4 19. Be3 Bxd5 20. Bxd5 Rxd5 21. Qe2 >Nc6 22. Rfc1 Na5 * >In this position, CM6000 after analysing the position for 12 hours give the >following assessment: -0.10 23. Rd1 Rxd1+ 24. Qxd1 Nc6 25. h4 Kc7 26. Bf4 e5 27. >Be3 Bd6 28. Qg4 Rd8 29. h5 Kb7. >CM6000 is not able to find the best move in this position, 23. b3 ! >The reason why it is because it is using static features to evaluate the >position and it misses the dynamic features in the position. Fritz 5.16 finds >the best move and give the following assessment: 0.16 23. b3 c3 24. Nxc3 bxc3 >25. Rxc3+ Kb8 26. Qc2 Bd6 27. b4 Bxb4. Which comes to show that if one is blind >and uses only one chess engine, and fails to realize that strengths and >weaknesses of an engine, one may be misled by the accuracy of the assessment of >the position. I write this post because of previous post which I read which >stated that CM is the best engine to analyze chess positions. I say not so, it >depends on the type of position, positions which are simple, and in which the >static features takes precedence are the best analyzed with engines like CM6000 >or Junior 5. I don't have a copy of Genius Chess nor MCP 8, so I am not able to >give my opinion about their engines, I am waiting for the new release of Genius >6, aka Millenium. For those of you who will try to argue with 23. b3 !!! as the >best move, let me tell you that this is the move which Garry Kasparov played and >suggested in his detailed analysis of the position in his book Test of Time, the >game he played against Timoshchenko. The following are his words, "My first >impressions about the resulting position were unfavourable. The variation 23. >Bxa7 Kb7 27. Nb6 c3! demonstrates best of all the advantages of Black's >position. Coud it be that White's overall strategic course was unsound? >Certainly not! But to refute Black's risky play, ENERGETIC MEASURES are needed. >All Blacks's positional gains have been obtained at the expense of a serious >weakening of his king's defences, whereas the white's pieces are already in the >vicinity of its residence. So forward, into the attack!" >This is what I meant when I said in my previous posts that CM is not aggressive, >perhaps the word I used was incorrected, CM does not know when to take Energetic >Measures in dynamic chess positions!!! And your basing this on a cm2000 program (which is a totally different engine) and 1chess position from GM kasparov that cm6000 couldnt find? I can come up with plenty of examples in which it can find, as a matter of fact there was a post of a position in which fritz5 didnt find and cm6000 and rebel10 found. No one said that cm6000 finds all the moves no one, not even GMkasparov could. But I do Know about static advantages and dynamic play and i know most people here do! And cm6000 plays very well it plays the position and what the position calls for it will find a majority of the time be it static or dynamic it has given exchange sacs on me a number of times and continued with play why? not because it saw it would win back material but it created enough pressure on the board for the sac! SO, sorry but you are not talking about the same program i play against.
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.