Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 17:49:54 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 04:57:54, chandler yergin wrote: >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? You got the answer you wanted by Uri. He's basically correct. All though not all engines will behave the same way regardless of knowledge. You don't want to know how computers "think" but how programs behave and their differences. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?422599
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.