Author: Derek Paquette
Date: 13:12:05 05/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2004 at 13:43:15, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On May 20, 2004 at 12:52:40, george wrote: > >>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3 b6 7. g3 Bb7 8. Bg2 >>O-O-O 9. O-O h5 10. b4 Bxd4 11. cxd4 h4 12. Nc3 Kb8 13. Rc1 Rc8 14. Nd5 Qg6 15. >>b5 Na5 16. Nxc7 Rxc7 17. Bf4 d6 18. Rxc7 Kxc7 19. Qc1+ Kb8 20. e5 d5 21. e6+ Ka8 >>22. Qc7 Nf6 23. e7 Rc8 24. Qd8 Qf5 25. Re1 h3 26. Re5 Qb1+ 27. Bf1 a6 28. e8=Q >>Nxe8 29. Rxe8 Rxd8 30. Rxd8+ Ka7 31. Bb8+ 1/2-1/2 >> >> >> >>well is move 16.Nc7 wrong??? how doi computer eveluate this move??? >> >>well i loved this game...small little guy showed almost no respect on his >>oponent..and a 2700 elo player !!!!!! > > >Nice game. I think that Borki Predojevic was winning somewhere along the way, >perhaps 28.Qf8! was winning... Not sure though, may be he could have won even >before that. Anyway, to try to answer your question about computers and the sac >on c7: > >I don't think that computers would approve of 16.Nc7 because it is too deep and >there are lots of branchings (haven't checked it though). Besides, computer >programs are, ultimately, materialistic. This kind of "intuitive" Tal-esque >tactics is something that chess software has not attained fully (yet). First >harbingers did appear though: Chess Tiger about two years ago, then Shredder >7.04, Shredder 8, and, above all, "the speculative beancounters" such as Deep >Junior (may be the strongest of the batch), and the new versions of Ruffian and >Deep Sjeng. > >Hiarcs and the King, although fantastic attackers, are not so speculative nor >are they typical beancounters... I don't think it is fair for you to say that, just because a program does not agree with a human move does not mean it automatically does not have a better one. Too deep might not even apply, considering that the evaluation drops very low after the sac and does not come back up at all, even after long analysis, i mean one could say that about everymove a computer doesn't agree with. It might just not have been the best move, but it was 'daring' so for some reason, people seem to think that computers should also make the 'right' move which doesn't turn out to be the best move at all. So far, Shredder 8 Deep Junior 8 ZX (the program that found h2 sac vs kasparov) Hiarcs9 all do not agree with this move, infact they score white as +1.00 or higher before the sac, and around -0.50 after the sac. So I am not convinced this was a wise move at all
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.