Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:04:30 05/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2005 at 20:01:39, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 30, 2005 at 15:34:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>So I don't buy his "I didn't think the machine would make a mistake." nonsense >>because it implies he knows something that he couldn't possibly know. I've seen >>_many_ games on ICC where Crafty was a piece ahead but forced to take a >>perpetual to avoid getting killed... > > >Err - sorry, but I don't quite understand your speech here. You're saying that > >- you was a piece ahead, so with +2 at least on your screen? > >- then YOU were forced to TAKE (?) - you mean to allow? - a perpetual? No. What I saw was an evaluation of 0.00, but counting material myself, crafty was actually ahead. I have seen it as far ahead as +5 if you count material, but the score is 0.00. I have seen it -9 in material, with a 0.00 score. That is, it might be a pawn down, then sacs the queen to open the king to a forced perpetual... counting material alone means nothing, without knowing what the search is seeing to go along with that material count... > >- because (??) you SAW that if you played on your advantage (visible trough the >+2) would in the end mean losing the game??????????? Yes. Imagine a position where I sac my queen for an apparent forced mate (I am a human). Early searches will show you with a score of +9 (you are a queen ahead since I just gave you mine.) but suddenly, now, as the search goes deep enough, you see you are getting mated, but you spot a perpetual I didn't see. And you take it. You are a queen ahead, but you take the perpetual. Why? Because even though you are a queen ahead, you are really about to lose your king... > > >And you are talking about CRAFTY who's seeing this???? Yes, except that crafty would correctly show a 0.00 score since it sees that it must go for the draw. I can remember ACM events where Cray Blitz wanted to resign, but Mike Valvo would say "no... Bob, look at the board." And when I did, I noticed material was equal. His point "spectators might not see the tactical problems and consider this equal." This is pretty common. > >Excuse me, but I'm not believing in the supernatural of THAT idea... > >BTW this time I will take this through to the end. I'm not interested in draws, >this argument I will transform into a clear win! ;)
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.