Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:08:58 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 07:33:38, martin fierz wrote: >On May 10, 2004 at 05:20:38, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 10, 2004 at 05:00:46, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>>>>correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>:_( >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>>>>and dispose of you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>> >>>>>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>>>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>>>>reviewed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>>>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>>>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>>>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>>>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>>>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >>>>>> >>>>>>Vas >>>>> >>>>>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: >>>>> >>>>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 >>>>> >>>>>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >>>>>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. >>>> >>>>That isn't very convincing. Did you look at _your_ PV? move 4? :) >>>> >>>>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they >>>>are played. >>>> >>>>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>1... e6-e5 2. e3-e4 Rf8-e8 3. Rf1-e1 Ra8-c8 4. a2-a4 h7-h6 5. Bb2-c3 Qd8-c7 6. >>>>>a4-a5 Bd6-c5 7. Qd1-b1 >>>>> = (0.25) Depth: 12/34 00:01:09.00 41299kN >>>>> >>>>>[D]r4rk1/pp1n1pp1/2pbpn1p/q2p3b/8/PP1PPNPP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 12 >>>>> >>>>>Once again Zappa wants e5. Deep Blue played Bc7, which is a pass move at best, >>>>>and I would think the bishop is actually better on D6. >>>>> >>>>>1... e6-e5 2. c2-c4 Qa5-a6 3. d3-d4 e5-e4 4. Nf3-h4 Ra8-e8 5. Nh4-f5 Bd6-c7 6. >>>>>Ra1-c1 Nd7-b6 7. c4xd5 Nb6xd5 >>>>> = (0.24) Depth: 11/32 00:00:49.38 30722kN >>>> >>>>Same comment. Look at your move 5. :) >>>> >>>>You agree with DB more than you think... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>[D]r4rk1/ppbn1pp1/2p1pn1p/q2p3b/7N/PP1PP1PP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 13 >>>>> >>>>>And Zappa is still dying for e5 :) Deep Blue played g5?, which cannot be >>>>>considered anything but a blunder. >>>> >>>>Kasparov said "this is black's only hope. Any other move simply loses. This >>>>makes it a fight." >>> >>>which makes it pretty clear that before something already went wrong for >>>black... if you have to play g5, even if it's still a fight, something is very >>>wrong. >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>It is not clear for me. >>I know that pushing pawns near the king is bad in a lot of cases but it is not >>always bad and this is the reason that I do not have high scores against it. >> >>Uri > >there are instances where pushing pawns in front of your king is ok. there are >others where it's not ok. they are rather easy to distinguish most of the time >(some simple rules are sufficient for this) and i'm surprised that you don't >understand that it's not such a great idea here... i know you are a born >skeptic, but perhaps you should learn to trust people with more experience >sometimes :-) The rules that I use in movei are based on attack information of squares near the king. only not having pawns near the king leads to only a small panelty and it is not enough to convince movei not to play g5. Uri
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.