Author: chandler yergin
Date: 01:57:54 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 21:09:15, Terry McCracken wrote: >On April 23, 2005 at 20:34:15, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 23, 2005 at 19:56:19, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On April 23, 2005 at 15:57:10, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On April 23, 2005 at 13:43:10, Günther Simon wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 10:40:50, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Programmers help me out here please. >>>>>> >>>>>>Computers are so materialistic, why wouldn't Fritz capture the Bishop? >>>>>> >>>>>>Very Odd play >>>>>> >>>>>>[D]8/6k1/7p/7p/2K5/4p3/3B1b2/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>>> >>>>>>New game, >>>>>>[D]8/6k1/7p/7p/2K5/4p3/3B1b2/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>>> >>>>>>Analysis by Fritz 8: >>>>>> >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd5 >>>>>> µ (-0.97) Depth: 5/11 00:00:00 1kN >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd5 >>>>>> µ (-0.97) Depth: 5/11 00:00:00 1kN >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd5 >>>>>> µ (-0.97) Depth: 5/11 00:00:00 1kN >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd5 h4 3.Bf4 Kf6 4.Ke4 >>>>>> µ (-1.16) Depth: 7/11 00:00:01 6kN, tb=2 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd5 h4 3.Bf4 Kf6 4.Ke4 >>>>>> µ (-1.16) Depth: 7/11 00:00:01 6kN, tb=2 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd5 Kf4 5.Bd4 >>>>>> µ (-1.00) Depth: 8/13 00:00:02 14kN, tb=5 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd5 Kf4 5.Be5+ Kf3 6.Bd4 >>>>>> µ (-1.00) Depth: 9/15 00:00:05 29kN, tb=25 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bd4+ Kg6 3.Bf6 Kf5 4.Kd3 Kf4 5.Ke2 Ke4 6.Bh4 >>>>>> µ (-1.00) Depth: 10/18 00:00:06 53kN, tb=55 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd5 h4 3.Bf4 Bf2 4.Ke4 h3 5.Kf3 Bg1 6.Bh2 >>>>>> µ (-0.84) Depth: 11/17 00:00:10 121kN, tb=162 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bf4 h4 3.Kd4 Kg6 4.Ke4 Kh5 5.Kf3 Be1 6.Be5 h3 7.Ke4 >>>>>> µ (-0.81) Depth: 12/17 00:00:15 236kN, tb=285 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bf2 h4 3.Kd3 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> ³ (-0.59) Depth: 13/19 00:00:22 536kN, tb=864 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Bf2 h4 3.Kd3 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> ³ (-0.59) Depth: 14/19 00:00:23 797kN, tb=1393 >>>>>>1.Bxe3! >>>>>> ³ (-0.31) Depth: 15/21 00:00:32 1754kN, tb=3140 >>>>>>1.Bxe3! >>>>>> = (-0.03) Depth: 16/21 00:00:33 2424kN, tb=4555 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 17/21 00:00:36 3211kN, tb=7269 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 18/21 00:00:38 3872kN, tb=9522 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 19/24 00:00:43 5301kN, tb=15314 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Bf6 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 20/24 00:00:47 8341kN, tb=23421 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Kf3 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 21/25 00:01:02 13559kN, tb=39189 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Kf3 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 22/26 00:01:16 24273kN, tb=60151 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Kf3 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 23/29 00:01:54 42568kN, tb=114394 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Kf3 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 24/30 00:03:11 91351kN, tb=191512 >>>>>>1.Bxe3 Bg3 2.Kd3 h4 3.Bf2 h5 4.Ke2 Kf7 5.Kf3 Bd6 6.Bxh4 Ke6 7.Ke4 Be5 8.Kf3 >>>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 25/30 00:05:56 150027kN, tb=307376 >>>>>> >>>>>>(, 23.04.2005) >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would the Program not capture the White Bishop? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I really don't understand your strange posts in the last time? >>>>>It is draw anyway, if you want it to play otherwise here, just >>>>>disable the tablebases and it will remain materialistic. >>>> >>>>You can try to explain it.. you can try to defend it.. >>>> >>>>I say.. >>>> >>>>It's BUG! The Programmers should fix it! >>> >>>It is not in any conceivable way a bug. No matter whether the program takes the >>>Bishop or not, the game is a draw. How, then, can one move be better than >>>another? >>> >>>First you say that computers are materialistic (which sounds like a derogatory >>>comment), then you complain when they DON'T play materialistically? >> >>Not at all... Material is everything! You can't win a game without a material >> >>advantage or positional compensation equal to or better than. >> >>> >>>According to you, White MUST capture Black's Queen in this position: >> >>Not according to me! That's just an even trade! >> >>What don't you understand about that? >> >>Do you think a Grandmaster would not have taken the Bishop? >> >>Or a Beginner? >> >>Or any Human Chess Player? >> >>> >>>[D]k7/1q6/8/3Q4/P7/K7/8/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>But it's a draw anyway, so why should it matter if White plays Qxb7+ or any >>>other drawing move? >>> >>>The answer is that it doesn't matter at all. >>> >>>jm >> THe point is that humans and Computers do not play the same. >>Computers don't have intelligence! >> >>It shows! > >I think John knows the machine isn't intelligent....but it isn't intelligent to >make such a fuss either. My point Terry is... until other Engines evaluate the position & make the same move, ignoring the Bishop capture, we won't know if this is peculiar to the one Program or not. I would like to see some Postings, and we might get a better feel for 'computer thinking' as compared to humans. OK?
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.