Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 20:24:29 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1998 at 22:46:49, Laurence Chen wrote: >> >>Read comment made by Lanny DiBartolomeo: >>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. >Yes we are talking about the same program, I use CM 6000, and I see it make >exchange sacs lots of time, but however, whenever it did, it did as a pseudo >sacrifice, not as a real sacrifice, it was able to win material back in a few >moves later. So, why is it that CM 6000 won't make a positional sacrifice in >this position?: >1rb1r1k1/3n1ppp/p1p1p3/q3P3/7P/2N1Q1R1/PPP3P1/2KR1B2 w - - 1 0 >It chooses 18. a3 as the best move after I left the CM 6000 to analyze the >position for 6 hours in the infinite level. Fritz finds the move 18. Rxd7, but >it gives an evaluation of 0.00, it prefers the other move 18. h5. This position >came from the game between GM Keres and GM Szabo, Budapest 1955. GM Keres won >the game in this fashion: 18. Rxd7! Bxd7 19. Bd3 h6 20. Qf4 (Threatening both >21. Qf6 and 21. Rxg7+ etc.) 20. ... Kf8 21. Rxg7! Kxg7 22. Qf6+ Kf8 23. Bg6! 1-0 >(23. ... Re7 24. Qh8#). Even Junior 5 does not like the move 18. Rxd7, so what >is wrong then with this move? I believe that GM Szabo defended poorly, usually, >there is a psychological shock which a player gets when one receives a sac on >board. I wonder how would Keres continued if Szabo played 19. ... g6 instead. >You see, CM, Fritz 5.16, Junior 5 reject the sac because it is unsound, it >doesn't see any gain of material, nor any prospect for a mating attack. GM Keres >sacrificed the exchange in order to remove the most active defender on board, >and he did it for a gain in initiative, and also because of the psychological >effect the sac would have on his opponent. CM 6000 is not the only engine which >performs sac on board, all the other engines in the top ten in the SSDF list are >capable of performing exchange sacrifices. But I have yet to see one engine >which performs a real sacrifice, not a pseudo-sacrifice. If CM 6000 did not >perform any positional sacrifices, then no one would buy a copy of CM !!! I used >the default CM personality to analyze this position. Next I am going to try the >logging player you suggested and let you know if the results are any different. It wont make a positional sacrafice if it can see it to be unsound not even a human would "if" they saw it to be unsound.
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.