Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:39:28 05/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2004 at 19:21:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 13, 2004 at 08:18:17, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On May 12, 2004 at 22:03:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On May 12, 2004 at 18:03:06, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On May 12, 2004 at 17:23:40, Robert Pawlak wrote: >>>> >>>>>See my site for more info: >>>>> >>>>>www.chessassistance.com >>>>> >>>>>Bob >>>> >>>> >>>>As long as there are positions like this one which requires 10 men TBs, Human >>>>will always be better :-) >>>> >>>>Most programs don't even have a clue of what the correct plan is, and for the >>>>first 30 moves it analyze this position as even, but any IM or Above will >>>>realize that White is winning from the starting position. >>>> >>>>[Event "Shootout (Shredder8, 120'/40+60'/20+30')"] >>>>[Site "?"] >>>>[Date "????.??.??"] >>>>[Round "?"] >>>>[White "New game"] >>>>[Black "?"] >>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>[SetUp "1"] >>>> >>>>[D]8/8/3k4/3p4/3PpN2/4P1B1/3qBK2/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>You don't have to be an IM to see that white is easily winning here. Three >>>pieces, especially when having two bishops amongst them, are a deadly >>>combination against which a lone queen stands no chance. >>> >>>Falcon also evaluates the position quite realistically: >>> >>>Falcon 1.0.12.8 running on GenuineIntel 733MHz 256MB: >>>depth time nodes nps score variation >>> 8/19 0.32 60k 189k 1.28 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2a2 3.g6e5 a2c2 >>> 4.c7d8 e6f5 5.d8e7 >>> 9/26 0.59 123k 209k 1.28 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2a2 3.g6e5 a2c2 >>> 4.c7d8 e6d6 5.d8f6 c2c7 >>>10/22 1.03 221k 214k 1.28 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2a2 3.g6e5 a2b2 >>> 4.c7d8 b2c2 5.d8g5 e6f5 6.g5e7 >>>11/24 2.23 504k 225k 1.26 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2a2 3.c7d8 a2d2 >>> 4.g6e5 e6f5 5.d8e7 f5e6 6.e7c5 e6f5 >>>11/24 2.66 605k 227k 1.27 1.f4d3++ >>>12/23 3.82 879k 230k 1.26 1.f4d3 d6e6 2.d3c5 e6f5 3.c5b7 f5e6 >>> 4.b7d6 d2c2 5.g3f4 c2b2 6.f4e5 b2c2 >>> 7.e5g3 c2b2 >>>12/25 5.41 1242k 229k 1.27 1.f4g6++ >>>13/34 8.60 2004k 232k 1.27 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2a2 3.c7d8 a2d2 >>> 4.g6e5 d2c2 5.d8g5 c2d2 6.g5f4 e6f6 >>> 7.e5d7 f6f5 8.d7e5 >>>14/36 20.27 4736k 233k 1.27 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2b2 3.g6e5 e6e7 >>> 4.c7a5 e7e6 5.a5d8 e6f5 6.d8c7 >>>15/33 41.85 9703k 231k 1.28 1.f4g6 d6e6 2.g3c7 d2b2 3.g6e5 e6e7 >>> 4.c7a5 e7e6 5.a5d8 e6f5 6.d8h4 f5e6 >>> 7.h4g5 b2d2 8.g5d8 d2c2 >> >>You call that easily winning ? >> >>You have a bad_trade score a la Crafty ? 1.2 pawns ? That means your engine is >>seeing it is easily winning with a tremendous 0.08 score. > >I have about 0.25 pawn bad trade score here. But the other 1 pawn advantage is >from the evaluation. > I'm curious - what are you evaluating? Ie. what rules are triggering? (If not the material imbalance.) Rybka gives +1.00 from search, exactly as from pure eval. The scaled material imbalance (bishop pair included, two knights would give a lower score) accounts for all of it. By scaled I mean that the less material is on the board, the more the existing material imbalance is weighed. Vas > >> >>Tony
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.