Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:09:08 08/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2005 at 13:28:06, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Bob, > >On August 18, 2005 at 11:32:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 18, 2005 at 11:21:20, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2005 at 10:51:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2005 at 10:42:33, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 18, 2005 at 09:48:19, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 18, 2005 at 09:01:51, Majd Al-Ansari wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I was watching the game on playchess and looks like Fruit won the game. Very >>>>>>>impressive game considering Crafty was using 8 processors and Fruit only 1 >>>>>>>processor. But I have to admit I think that Crafty was caught by poor book >>>>>>>opening. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am not sure I completely agree with this assessment, at least not when put >>>>>>this way. >>>>>> >>>>>>The potentially controversial move is 11. ... g5 I suppose. I don't think this >>>>>>move is that bad at all, objectively. >>>>> >>>>>I hope you know that objectivity doesn´t count in computer chess at all. >>>>>Crafty 19.19 thinks the position is about +1.2 for White after this move and >>>>>Fruit 2.1 thinks it is +1. >>>>> >>>>>Before that move both think it was equal. >>>>>So the game was practically decided after this move. >>>>> >>>>>Let's move a little further: 12. Qd2 h6 >>>>>>13. Qc3 Qf6 14. Kh1 . Here Crafty played 14. ...Bb7?, that is clearly a bad >>>>>>idea. The king has to stay in the centre or castle queenside if necessary, the >>>>>>bishop belongs to d7 or e6 and then the rooks both belong to the kingside to >>>>>>attack white's king. >>>>>> >>>>>>After 14. ...Bb7 white has an edge, but black is not lost. After 15. f4 gxf4 16. >>>>>>Bxf4 the next critical point is reached. Here a possible move is 16...Rg8 e.g. - >>>>>>nothing to brag about, but black is still well alive. Instead 16. ..O-O ?? is >>>>>>just suicide. >>>>>> >>>>>>So yes - this line should never have been in Crafty's book, because it could not >>>>>>deal with it. I am to blame for that, so maybe 0.6 points were lost because of >>>>>>that - bad enough !! The rest is Crafty's fault, that just castled into it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Congrats to Fruit - nice game! >>>>>> >>>>>>Peter >>>>> >>>>>Your book did a good job so far. Nobody is able to prevent such things >>>>>completely. >>>>>Bob should develop some tool which analyses all the relevant final positions of >>>>>a Crafty book automatically and in case Crafty does evaluate this positions >>>>>worse than -0.7 (for example) writes the associated line and score into a >>>>>textfile. >>>>>That should make life much easier for his book cooker :) >>>>> >>>>>Michael >>>> >>>> >>>>It isn't quite so simple. This wasn't necessarily the "final position". It was >>>>a "side position" where white could play a move we didn't have in our book. >>>>Primarily because the move 12. ... g5 is not in any book I have, which took >>>>Fruit out at a point where the "refutation" was obvious. >>> >>>But in a game: >>> >> >>Being played "in a game" is meaningless. >> >>I've seen GM players overlook mate in 2 in a game, and I'd hardly want to use >>their move as a choice... :) >> > >well, but I may explain how the move did get in your book. Possibly you did fall >back into your main book.bin from books.bin and therefor this move was played >somehow... bad luck simply... Anyway, I think so far you have nothing to worry >about, Crafty definitely did show that the ole grandpa still bites a lot. So >keep on working on it as long you have fun with it. Computer Chess World without >you and Crafty would be a lot poorer. > >Greets, Thomas Nope. Peter is using a completely original book. The "enormous.pgn" book is not there. And this move is not in my normal crafty book anyway, because I cull any move that was not played at least 10 times when I create the books... Peter can say more about it, as I am not sure what he does book-wise, whether he uses both a small and big book (books.bin and book.bin) or whether he has just one.... he volunteered to do the book, and I simply said "OK, do it..." He's done pretty well IMHO. Shoot, we could lose every remaining game for all I know. The program has been playing _very_ solid in the testing I have been doing. it has looked very solid except for the last two games. The Sjeng game was simply something overlooked months ago that was easy to fix. This game had a book problem, but even after the g5, I wonder if Crafty could have played it better. I'm looking now...
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.