Author: Amir Ban
Date: 09:19:48 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 15:37:12, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>On June 27, 2005 at 16:14:26, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On June 27, 2005 at 13:19:49, Peter Skinner wrote:
>>
>>>On June 27, 2005 at 10:56:28, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It was not a non stable version but a version with bugs.
>>>>The reply to your question why was already given.
>>>>
>>>>SMK did not know that it is buggy version.
>>>
>>>In fact in a thread below Sandro stated it was a beta version that had bugs. And
>>>that it was 150 elo weaker. One _has_ to assume that they _knew_ it was beta,
>>>and that it had bugs.
>>
>>No
>>
>>I believe that
>>Stefan believed that it is the best version that he had in that time.
>>He made some change that he believed to be an improvement and he did not notice
>>that he deleted some part.
>>
>>I think that this was a failure of both stefan and sandro.
>
>No, I did my best to convince Stefan, but he believed in the result of the 2004
>WCCC and on the blitz tests.
>
>As you know I look the programs play and evaluate them depending on how they
>play and other things I have learned in more than 28 years experience on
>computer chess and chess programs.
>
>Most programmers believe in tests and on statistics. I believe in what I
>see...and how I do it...
>
>I have been able several times to estimate almost correctly how much a new
>version was better out of a few games.
>I already told you, but you do not believe this.
>I do not care if people believe me or not. I get fun on doing this and I'll do
>it until I will get fun.
>
>It was my system against std. testing systems and once again I was correct.
>
>I tell you another secret:
>
>do you remember when we lost to Junior in 2001 WCCC (I think) a won game only
>because the program understimated a passed pawn?
>
What passed pawn? You mean king safety. This should refresh your memory.
[Event "WMCCC"]
[Site "Maastricht"]
[Date "2001.08.22"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Junior 7"]
[Black "Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B84"]
[Annotator "Deep Fritz (10s)"]
[PlyCount "160"]
[EventDate "2001.??.??"]
{B84: Sicilian Scheveningen: 6 Be2 a6, lines without early Be3} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3
d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. Be2 Qc7 8. f4 b5 9. a3 Bb7 10.
Bf3 Nbd7 11. Nde2 Rc8 {last book move} 12. O-O Be7 13. Kh1 O-O 14. b4 Nb6 15.
Qd3 Rfd8 16. f5 {This push gains space} 16... Nc4 {
Menacing. Black fights for the Initiative} 17. fxe6 fxe6 18. Bd4 Rd7 19. Bxf6
Bxf6 (19... gxf6 $2 20. Bg4 f5 21. exf5 $18) 20. Bg4 Re7 21. Qh3 Rce8 22. a4
bxa4 23. Bh5 Rf8 24. Bg4 Bc8 25. Rxa4 Ree8 26. Raa1 g6 27. Qg3 Qb6 28. Bh3 (28.
Rfb1 $5 $17) 28... Qxb4 29. Qd3 Bg7 30. Rfb1 Qc5 31. Na4 Qc7 32. c3 Rf6 33. Nd4
Ref8 34. Nf3 Rf4 35. Nd4 Re8 36. Rf1 Rxf1+ 37. Rxf1 Bd7 38. Ra1 Kh8 39. Qf1 g5
40. Qd1 (40. Qb1 h5 41. g3 g4 $19) 40... Ne5 (40... g4 $5 41. Qxg4 Bxd4 42.
cxd4 Bxa4 43. Qf3 $19) 41. g3 g4 42. Bg2 a5 43. Qc2 Rb8 44. Qc1 Nc4 45. Qe1 Bh6
46. h3 (46. Qf1 Qc8 47. h4 Ne3 $19) 46... Ne3 47. hxg4 e5 (47... Nxg2 $6 48.
Kxg2 Kg8 49. Qd1 $17) 48. Nf5 Bxf5 $1 {a forceful and devastating end} (48...
Nxg4 $6 49. Nxh6 Nxh6 50. Qd2 $19) (48... Nxg2 $6 49. Kxg2 Bf8 50. Qe2 $17) 49.
exf5 (49. gxf5 Nc2 {A double attack}) 49... Nc2 {Theme: Double Attack} 50. Qd1
Nxa1 51. Qxa1 e4 52. Qd1 e3 53. Bf3 Bg7 54. Kg2 Re8 55. Kh3 (55. Qf1 Bf6 $19)
55... Qc4 (55... Bxc3 $6 56. Qc1 Rc8 57. Qxe3 $19) 56. Be2 Qc6 57. g5 {
White gets in control} 57... Be5 (57... Bxc3 $6 58. Nxc3 Qxc3 59. Qxd6 $19) 58.
Nb2 d5 59. Nd3 Bxc3 60. Nf4 {White prepares the advance g6} 60... d4 61. Kh4 (
61. Kh2 Qd7 62. Bd3 Qf7 $19) 61... a4 (61... h6 {makes it even easier for Black
} 62. Qb3 hxg5+ 63. Kxg5 $19) 62. f6 Rb8 (62... Re5 63. Qb1 d3 64. Bxd3 $15)
63. Bf3 {Threatening mate: Bxc6} 63... Qb5 (63... Qd7 64. g6 Rg8 65. g7+ Rxg7
66. fxg7+ Kxg7 67. Bd5 $15) 64. g6 $17 {Threatening mate... how?} 64... Rd8 $4
{forfeits the clear win} (64... Rg8 65. Bd5 e2 66. g7+ Rxg7 67. fxg7+ Kxg7 68.
Qxe2 Qxe2 69. Nxe2 Kf6 $11) 65. g7+ $18 Kg8 66. Qc2 Rd6 67. Qa2+ Qb3 68. Bd5+
Rxd5 69. Nxd5 Kf7 (69... Qxa2 {hoping against hope} 70. Ne7+ Kf7 71. g8=Q+ Kxf6
72. Qxa2 Kxe7 73. Qxa4 Kd6 $18) 70. Qg2 d3 (70... Qb8 71. Qe4 (71. Nxc3 $6 {
is a useless try} 71... Kxf6 72. Qd5 Kxg7 73. Qxd4+ Kg8 $18) 71... Bb4 72. Nxb4
$18) 71. Qf3 Qb8 (71... Qb4+ 72. Nxb4 Bxf6+ 73. Qxf6+ Kxf6 74. g8=Q d2 75. Qd8+
Kf7 76. Qd5+ Kg7 77. Qe5+ Kf7 78. Nd5 h5 79. Qf6+ Kg8 80. Ne7+ Kh7 81. Qf7+ Kh6
82. Nf5#) 72. Qh5+ Ke6 73. Nxc3 e2 74. Qg4+ Kf7 75. Kg5 h6+ 76. Kxh6 e1=Q 77.
Qg6+ Ke6 78. f7+ Kd7 {The mate threat is Qh1} 79. Qxd3+ Kc7 80. Qc4+ Kb6 1-0
Amir
>Well, just before the 2004 WCCC I told Stefan I was worrying about our program
>(Shreder 6 preliminary version) not handling the passed pawns correctly in many
>positions...he said that I was exaggerating a little on this...who was correct?
>
>Even a very smart guy like Stefan is sometimes difficult to convince and only
>evidence can make him change his mind.
>
>I do not like to have to demostrate things as I say things only when I am sure,
>no matter how I do to get these info.
>My system may be an old system, but I like it and so I do not want to change it
>as has been correct so far...
>
>>
>>Sandro could probably do a better job in explaining stefan that Shredder is
>>weaker by showing him positions that the new shredder is weaker than the old
>>shredder.
>
>You should know that programmers are not so easy to convince when they like to
>believe in something...
>
>Sandro
>
>>
>>If we want to talk about examples then I think that the fail low of shredder
>>against falcon in WCCC could be a good example and based on my memory commercial
>>shredder is clearly better in solving the fail low.
>>
>>I read in the israeli chess newspaper that shredder needed almost an hour to
>>solve some fail low in that game and Falcon used that time to find the reason
>>that shredder failed low.
>>
>>Maybe Falcon could not find some good move in case that shredder played it
>>faster.
>>
>>Uri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Junior is a positional program?
>>>
>>>Yes it is. Junior and Hiarcs are probably the best positional chess programs
>>>around.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do not believe it for a moment.
>>>>Junior is a fast searcher.
>>>
>>>Exactly. Faster search = deeper depth = more positional play.
>>>
>>>>Fast searcher cannot have a lot of knowledge in it's evaluation so Junior >cannot be a positional program.
>>>
>>>Programs can become positional without knowledge but by deeper search. This has
>>>been stated many times on this very board.
>>
>>deeper search can help to find better positional moves but I cannot define fast
>>searcher as a positional program and there are a lot of things that you cannot
>>find by deeper search.
>>
>>For example if you do not understand the fortress concept then there are cases
>>when no search can help you to avoid a draw by fortress.
>>
>>Shredder shows some understanding of the fortess concept and there are fortress
>>position that it evaluates as 0.00 or close to it(of course this understanding
>>can be improved and there are a lot of fortress positions that shredder does not
>>understand but at least stefan tried to do something in that direction).
>>
>>Junior shows no understanding of the fortess concept.
>>
>>Uri
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.