Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Crafty 19.19 to catch too. A new K.O.

Author: Matthew Hull

Date: 09:01:19 05/16/05

Go up one level in this thread


On May 16, 2005 at 11:27:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On May 15, 2005 at 15:53:11, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>On May 15, 2005 at 11:02:17, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On May 15, 2005 at 01:53:40, Joshua Haglund wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 14, 2005 at 10:40:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 14, 2005 at 01:06:41, Joshua Haglund wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 13, 2005 at 22:48:44, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On May 13, 2005 at 19:21:37, Joshua Haglund wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On May 13, 2005 at 13:48:27, Pablo Ignacio Restrepo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hello Robert
>>>>>>>>>It was a mistake in redaction. Antiajedrez or Antichess have been my extreme
>>>>>>>>>anticomputer style, across I have won many times many top engines in all time
>>>>>>>>>game control. But usually Crafty have been for me a real problem for beat, iqual
>>>>>>>>>than Rufian, Tiger Gambit 2.0 , Quark .....
>>>>>>>>>Usually I am playing into playchess. There I have won many top engines, but to
>>>>>>>>>repeat..... Craftuy have ben very strong, but today in morning look ...... 2
>>>>>>>>>easy draw. Why?
>>>>>>>>>Regard,
>>>>>>>>>Pablo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello Pablo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've told you a couple times, if you remember, Dr. Hyatt removed the stone-wall
>>>>>>>>detection code in version 19.15. It was removed because it appeared to Dr. Hyatt
>>>>>>>>it wasn't needed anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As a result it should be easier for you using "anti-chess" playing Crafty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Joshua Haglund
>>>>>>>>toneewa@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If I looked at the game correctly, this wasn't a stonewall type problem, it was
>>>>>>>just e4 Nf3 and Bc4 for white if I am recalling the right game (I have looked at
>>>>>>>several today so that could be wrong).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[D]k1/2rbp1pp/1p3p1r/p2P1P2/P1P1B1P1/1P2R2P/5NK1 b - - 0 121
>>>>>>[D]n3/2rr1q1k/1p1p1p1p/p1p1pPpP/4P2N/P1PP2Q1/1P3PRK/6R1 b - - 0 38
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These are to me "stone-wall" positions. I don't know how Crafty use to detect
>>>>>>the "stone wall"... by pawn formation positions or by recognition of particular
>>>>>>moves; maybe both. Pablo use to play Crafty and have not much luck before the
>>>>>>removal of the "stone-wall" detection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Joshua Haglund
>>>>>>toneewa@yahoo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The stonewall code looked for pawns at f4, e3, d4, c3.  If three of those were
>>>>>present, it assumed "stonewall"...  This doesn't seem to match...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What if the pawns are for black??
>>>>In these examples of Pablo's games;
>>>>
>>>>black pawns: a5,b6,c5,d6,e5,f6,g5,h6
>>>>definately stone wall with black.
>>>>
>>>>white pawns: a4,b3,c4,d5,f5,g4,h3
>>>>partial wall, but two strong pawn chains.
>>>>
>>>>The code was removed (19.15) so Crafty doesn't recognize anything like that now?
>>>>
>>>>Joshua Haglund
>>>>toneewa@yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't matter.  The "pattern" is a pawn at c3, d4, e3 and f4, or if you mirror
>>>that for black, c6, d5, e6, f5.  The "stonewall problem" is the pawn at e3/e6
>>>makes it very difficult for the bishop it is blocking.  And the bishop tangles
>>>other pieces up making a quick g/h file attack successful if the engine makes a
>>>single mistake in untangling.
>>>
>>>If you have played e4/e5, then that problem doesn't happen, since d3/d6 lets the
>>>bishop out.
>>
>>
>>>To handle the case in the game(s) given, crafty depends on its
>>>"blocked pawn" code to avoid the position getting so blocked and becoming
>>>drawish.
>>
>>
>>But is that logic only active if crafty knows it's playing human?
>
>
>That's a good question.  I'll go back a few versions and look.  I don't think it
>was "human only" however, but it might have been.
>
>Just looked at 19.6, and it was active for all opponents, not just humans.  The
>only way it was turned off was to turn off the asymmetric evaluation option,
>which also turned the stonewall detection code off since it was asymmetric as
>well.


I'm probably thinking of the old internal GM and "blockers" lists, which used to
take special care to prevent closed positions, IIRC.



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.