Author: Harald Faber
Date: 14:05:16 11/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2004 at 16:47:23, Oreopoulos Kostas wrote: >On November 10, 2004 at 15:37:59, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On November 10, 2004 at 14:14:39, Oreopoulos Kostas wrote: >> >>>[D] 1Q6/3b2pp/p1k1p3/8/4N3/Pp2b3/2q3PP/5R1K b - - 6 1 >>> >>>In that position it evalutates the position as won on both normal and gambit >>>styles. >>>Not better , but won. >> >> > >>00:30:38.1 -1,66 17 1953547759 Be3-c5 Ne4xc5 Kc6xc5 Qb8-f8+ Kc5-c6 Qf8-f3+ >>Kc6-d6 Rf1-d1+ Kd6-e7 Qf3-g4 Qc2-c3 Qg4-h4+ Ke7-e8 Qh4xh7 Bd7-b5 a3-a4 Bb5xa4 >> >>Is this what shows a won position? I say: Never >>Is it? For me it is not. > > >Actually the score after both Qd3 or Kd5 should be 0.0 or close to zero. >-1.66 is almost 2 pawns up. For me that is almost won. >And of course it VERY BAD evaluation. How can you expect CT2004 to play well if >he over-under estimates a position so much.? > >Dont you agree? No. I know how Tiger evaluates. I often see draw positions which Tiger does not evaluate as 0.00, although Tiger shows 3-times repitition. For exact interpretation of Tigers evals I suggest to ask Christophe Theron. For me this looks like another case of "uh, my program shows +/- x.y but the position is not won/lost". The mistake is: You trust the evals too much. I *know* that even Shredder and Fritz sometimes show +2, +3 and do not win. So my suggestion is: Trust your own eyes, not (only) the engine's eval. You find examples within my Tiger 2004 tournament games on www.harald-faber.de
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.