Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 11:42:41 12/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1998 at 14:27:13, Laurence Chen wrote: >On December 13, 1998 at 23:24:29, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: > >>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. >Your last remark is totally untrue... GM makes sac based on psychological >reasons, and yes they will play unsound sacs because it creates problems for the >opponent in a OTB game... Guess you don't study much chess literature... I guess you have to no what I myself mean By unsound before you start GUESSING what I do or DON'T do
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.