Author: Graham Banks
Date: 02:50:02 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 04:21:14, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On April 23, 2005 at 01:35:48, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 21:04:16, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2005 at 20:49:40, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>> >>>>In the spat further down the page between Chandler and Terry, Chandler makes the >>>>statement: >>>> >>>>"The PV evals are static positional values, and meaningless unless a Mate is >>>>found." >>>> >>>>In support of Chandler, I have seen engines evaluate themselves as +3 and wind >>>>up drawing or even losing the game. Giving equal time to Terry, it seldom >>>>happens and, off the top of my head, I can't recall seeing a top engine score >>>>itself +4 or better and fail to win the game. >>>> >>>>Perhaps other members can supply some instances. Membership in the Order of the >>>>Phoenix goes to the most impressive comebacks. >>>> >>>>Best >>>>Dan H. >>> >>>I have seen +6 or 7 and and the engine then lose. Very , rare and I don't have >>>examples to show. I think it may harder with today's engines and fast >>>processors -- my recollections are going back to the 90's and perhaps beyond. >> >> >>I've seen an engine scoring +4.8 failing to win the game and it was one of the >>currently available top engines. >> >>Graham. > >Hi Graham > >Who was it? Or better, to spare them the embarrassment, who was the opponent? >Coming back from a -4.8 against a top engine should warrant membership in the >order. > >Best >Dan H. Hi Dan, I think it might have been Shredder 9 fortuitously managing to gain a draw against CM10th with numerous inescapable queen checks after CM10th had just 'won' material. Shredder 9 also thought it was in big trouble. Normally when one engine gets an advantage of more than +2, it builds on that advantage and goes on to win. Graham.
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.