Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:22:55 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. > >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 I also think that white stands worse after 6.Qb3 or 6.Bd3 but I am sure of nothing. I do not assume as obvious that humans are smater than computers. Fruit and other programs evaluate white as better with these moves so I have serious doubts if my knowledge is correct. I have not the GM title in correspondence games today. I do not know if I will get it in the future but I believe that today being a strong player is not needed to achieve the GM title in correspondence games and I suspect that in part of the cases it is even a disadvantage because strong humans may assume as obvious that they evaluate the position better than the computer that may be wrong(when the main reason that they are strong players is that they are better in tactics). I do not claim to have positional understanding that is better than computers and there are positions when it is the opposite based on my experience and after analyzing I have to admit that Fruit's evaluation was right and not my evaluation. The relative advantage of humans to computers may be the ability to learn from analysis and change their evaluation function but I did not analyze 6.Qb3 and do not plan to do it seriously so it is better not to trust my initial opinion. I believe that I could do better in correspondence games in case of using more time for analysis with computers but I prefer to do other things like posting here and the computer often works on other interesting positions that are not from my correspondence games so I am not sure if I am going to achieve the GM norm(my opinion is that with enough effort I can do it). 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.