Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 06:59:06 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 07:53:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 01:50:03, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 12, 2004 at 03:51:44, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>The question here is how Crafty being down a pawn, also facing 3 connected >>>passers (h2,g2,f2) evaluates this position. Did 42..a5! show a possitive score >>>for Crafty then hat off for Crafty. Did 42..a5! show a < -1.xx or even lower >>>then I would say Crafty indeed was lucky. >> >>I look at it from a different perspective. Crafty was the better engine this >>game. Dan Heisman says it better than I could. >> >>http://www.chesscafe.com/text/real.txt >> >>"A Chain is Only As Strong As Its Weakest Link >>The best way to introduce the second part of my explanation is to >>make an analogy. Suppose you build a home where the temperature >>is -20 degrees outside. You decide on a one-room home with four >>walls, a roof, a floor, and a heater. You decide to save a little time >>and material by finishing the four walls, the floor, and half the roof, >>but the other half you leave open. Even though you have completed >>over 90% of the structure, the temperature inside your home will >>still be about -20 degrees with half your roof open. If you want >>your inside heater to be effective, you have to enclose all of your >>home. >> >>The cold home analogy is similar to what happens when you play >>Real chess for 90% of your moves, but not for the other 10%. You >>think you are a good player, but weaker players beat you when you >>let down your guard for that 10%. In order to be a good player, you >>have to at least try to play correctly on every move, not just most of >>them. Consistency is important: remember that your chain of >>moves, in many cases, is only as strong as the weakest link." >> >>Crafty may have been outplayed for most of the game, but it was more consistent >>than Falcon, so it ended up the better engine that game. > > >I disagree with the comparison. In computer chess it sometimes happens a >position being so full of dynamics both computers impossibly can't see (predict) >the outcome neither by eval nor by search. In such a case luck moves in. I think >42..a5! is such a case. > >It's like in soccer, 2 equal teams, the ball by one unfortunate clutch coming >right for the foot of the opponent and BANG, you lose. Nobody is to blame. > >In human chess it is different, the human player can always be blamed for not >seeing the strategic consequences. It's different with computer chess since >strategic understanding hardly is to program and still is an unexplored area. > >To demonstrate my point, put the 42..a5! position in any program, let it think >for 1 ply and I predict no program will report a plus score for black. Look. Basically white got the advantage and couldn't capitalize. This happens often in human and computer tournaments. If I spoil my advantage, I can expect to be punished. The fault is with white, who simply did not know how to finish. How many times did Boris say in favor of white, "This game is over"? Many times. White simply dropped the ball. There was no luck. Only failure. "Crafty was lucky" is a classic cop-out excuse, just like someone we all know. Why follow in _that_ person's footsteps? > >My best, > >Ed
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.