Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 00:47:29 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2005 at 03:15:17, Marc-Olivier Moisan-Plante wrote: >On October 29, 2005 at 01:29:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 28, 2005 at 22:56:20, Marc-Olivier Moisan-Plante wrote: >> >>> >>>Who would doubt that once in a while programs like to jettison a pawn on move 4 >>>for obscure compensation? >>> >>>[D] rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/3p1n2/5b2/2PP4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4 >> >>e4 is not a sacrifice. >>White can get the pawn back in few moves. >> >>examples: >> >>1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.e4 Bxe4 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3 d5 7.Qb3 with a fork. >> >>Note that 6.Qf3 is typical for humans who go for material gain. >>I guess that it is the reason that I find only 6.Qf3 in Fritz8.ctg and in >>Junior9.ctg and not computer typical move that do not win material like 6.Qb3 or >>6.Bd3 >> >>Uri > >As you point out, this is *not* a sacrifice. Just a plain bad move which gives >away the advantage for white (at least!). So just a bad move. This is different >from the examples presented before where "Fritz 9" absolutely (and wrongly) >sacrifies a pawn. You get a point here. > >However in both Fruit 2.2 and Fritz 8 PVs', "4.e4" is a genuine pawn >sacrifice... (also Ruffian 1.0.5 "agrees") so they both intend to sac the >pawn... for dubious compensation (in my opinion)... hence my post... They look >like an over optimistic human here...strange pseudo-sacrifice... Do they look >like human? If yes, it is hard to say that "Fritz 9" is more human... or just a >weak human?! > >I think that saying "Fritz 9" is more human is fluke (though this is an >uninformed opinion as I don't own it - I guess it is a great chess program in >general) and I would guess that Hiarcs 9 (9...9.6...10) is (will be) more human >in general. > >What I wanted to point out is that "sceptical" program like Fruit 2.2 do >sometimes evaluate PV's in which there are "strange moves" (which GM would play >4.e4 seriously?), so that anti-Fritz data mining is unfair. 4.e4?! is a move which a strong human might at least consider. It is not nearly as strange as the examples I have presented. [Event "EU-chT (Men)"] [Site "Batumi"] [Date "1999.11.29"] [Round "1.4"] [White "Sakalauskas, Vaidas"] [Black "Georgiev, Vladimir"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A53"] [WhiteElo "2450"] [BlackElo "2519"] [PlyCount "33"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. e4 Bxe4 5. Nxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 d5 7. Qb3 Nd7 8. cxd5 Nd6 9. Nf3 g6 10. Bf4 Bg7 11. Bd3 O-O 12. O-O Nb6 13. Rac1 Rc8 14. Rc5 Qd7 15. Rfc1 Rfd8 16. Ne5 Qa4 17. Qc3 1/2-1/2 Michael >PS: Chessbase did positive data mining for their product here: >http://www.fritz9.de/experten/fritz9engine.htm . I know you already know that. > >PPS: I already suggested on this forum (without success!) that fans of program >xyz should gather moves found *uniquely* by their favorite program, so the >competition would turn around finding "good moves" instead of publishing >"mistakes". That sounds more interesting to me... (general comment, not >something related to your post). > >PPSS: With your suggestions (6.Qb3 or 6.Bd3), I still think that white stands >worse (are you an ICCF GM?, so you can confirm that?! - almost a free pawn, >isn't it?). > >Cheers, > >Marc-Olivier
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.