Author: chandler yergin
Date: 13:16:27 10/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2005 at 13:51:59, Dagh Nielsen wrote: >On October 13, 2005 at 13:21:29, Günther Simon wrote: > >>Well S9.1 makes the same 'blunder' at least in a fast game... >>What speed has your machine? I did this analysis on my slow machine P3 650, >>but as it still holds c6/depth 21 as best after 47 sec, it will hold it for at >>least 14 sec on a P4 2.67 (ratio 3.3:1 measured here, P3s are relatively >>faster...) >> >>I guess people should stop concluding too much from bullet/fast blitz sudden >>death tcs, this just leads often to wrong conclusions like here. >>(the result was just a random result due to thinking times of 0-3 sec from >>an equal game at around move 30.) > >Thanks for your comment. > >Sorry, I did not examine the move c7-c6 in depth, I just know that when I >watched the game being played, I instantly feared disaster when it chose to play >c7-c6. My point is, for Black to draw this type of positions, usally a blockade >is necessary (or otherwise a passer protected by the bishop). > >Before posting, I quickly let Fruit look at the position before c7-c6 with >multiple candidate moves displayed. It also evaluated h6-h5 as equal, and in the >principal variation the move c7-c6 was not included, so I just assumed black had >another positionally more sound way of playing. > >However, it doesn't really matter if the position is lost, either before or >after c7-c6. It's just one example where Fruit needlessly enters this kind of >endgames because it evaluates them as equal, where they often are not. You may >notice that Fritz 9 evaluated it as giving white a sligt advantage, and punished >Fruit very well playing white moves leading to a win, moves that Fruit evaluates >as inferior for white (if you look at each move with Fruit). The same is true in >other examples against Schredder, the position is equal, but Fruit enters an >exchange down endgame, evaluate them as equal, while Scredder or Fritz 9 >recognizes they are inferior. > >My machine is an AMD Athlon 2400. > >I do not agree that we should not conclude anything from blitz games. These are >features of the evaluation functions, and Fruit would make the same type of >flawed evaluations also with longer time controls. > >Frankly, I have seen it happen too many times for you to simply discard the >phenomenon because I present a blitz example. > >Also, what is blitz today, was long time control a few years ago, and what is >long time control today, will be blitz in a few years, due to computers >increasing their speed. If you know what you are doing, you are quite able to >make conclusions about engine weaknesses from blitz games, I would even say that >it is more useful to play many blitz games instead of a few long control games >because you get more examples to judge from. Thank you!
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.