Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:36:50 05/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1999 at 01:13:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 23, 1999 at 23:45:29, Mark Young wrote: > >>On May 23, 1999 at 23:28:45, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On May 23, 1999 at 23:13:59, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On May 23, 1999 at 22:44:04, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>It's only one game, certainly, but it doesn't really look like Rebel had much >>>>>understanding of the game from the time it left book (other's appraisals, not >>>>>mine), and Rebel's lose supports the argument that the micros have their own >>>>>weaknesses, and aren't yet a real match for GM players. >>>>> >>>>>So where does that leave previous opinions about a DB board for the desktop? >>>>>We'll have to see what the next months of Rebel-GM games hold, but the market >>>>>for a DB chip is starting to look better and better. >>>>> >>>>>If Rebel consistently loses to the GMs, doesn't this just set the market up for >>>>>the entry of Hsu? >>>>> >>>>>Roger >>>> >>>> >>>>This question must be answerd first: Does the new prototype Rebel 10.5 represent >>>>the current state of the art? Rebel 10.5 is untested, Rebel 10.5 has not shown >>>>itself to be in the very top class of programs as CM 6000 and Fritz 5.32 and >>>>Hiarcs 7. It is clear that Rebel 10.5 had problems (26. f4???)....but the other >>>>top programs have no problem understand the positions in (Ed's key moves shown >>>>below). >>>> >>>> >>>>17. e3? >>>>Blocking its pieces to go the king-side. After this move Ne3, Rg3 (h3) are no >>>>longer possible. 17.e3 was a last minute decision of Rebel10.5 it had 17.Qd3 >>>>all the time. Black answers with 17..f5 and now black is the boss on the king- >>>>side. >>>> >>>>*Hiarcs7 plays the correct 17. Qd3* >>> >>>We'll have to see what Ed can come up with regarding Rebel's last-minute switch >>>to e3. In general, I don't think that this game provides significant evidence >>>that Hiarcs is dramatically better than Rebel. In any case, it would be >>>foolhardy to make such a conclusion from one game. >> >>And no one did, other then to say Rebel 10.5 has not been shown to be the state >>of the art. Not like the top 3 I have named. And the current state of the art >>programs like Hiarcs7 plays the correct moves. > >The suggestion that Hiarcs 7 is state-of-the-art and Rebel 10.5 is not implies >that Hiarcs 7 is dramatically better than Rebel 10.5. Both or neither, please. What is hard to understand here, Hiarcs7 is a well know program, with many games and one of the top 3 programs on the ssdf list. Rebel 10.5 is a unknown with one game to its credit that I know about. How can we assume it is state of the art. Thus my question...does Rebel 10.5 Represent the Current State of the Art? I did not answer the question, only asked it. > >>>>21.Ra5 exd4 22.Rb5 >>>>Going for the pawn, nice manoeuvre but definitely wrong. Rebel's score dropped >>>>from 0.7 to 0.3 (or so) when it saw the danger of Qe2 but that was to few togive >>>>up the hunt for the pawn. >>>> >>>>*Hiarcs7 plays this, but so far has shown that after 22.. Qd8 23. Rxb4! wins. >>>>Not 23. exd4?! as played by Rebel* >>> >>>This is inaccurate. No win has been demonstrated whatsoever. Autoplaying from >>>a position doesn't prove squat. >> >>Until someone can bust the line it is proof, but not proven. > >It's not proof at all! You can't just take a position, play some reasonable >game from the position, and assess it based on the result of the game! > >I know chessplayers who do this in regular post-mortems too. It's pathetic. What is pathetic is a GM and other on CCC saying white is lost at move 20 without showing anything at all to back it up. I showed my results and lines and reasoning for other to look at and give me feed back on. That what I want! If it is wrong I want to know... I am not saying white has a clear win here, but said Hiarcs7 thinks and shows it has a clear win playing the other programs and against self play. I did not say Hiarcs7 is correct and this is proven. I want people to punch holes in the move if they can. If I did not, I would just say "White has a overwhelming position and black is lost at move 20". > >>I played many program against this position, and myself have tried to bust the >>move, all attempts has lost to 24. Rxb4. > >Show the attempts and their refutations, then it will be more like a proof. >Concrete analysis for a variety of Black tries and responses by White is far >better than an autoplay result. > >>I said nothing inaccurate here, I did not say it proved anything...other then >>Hiarcs7 has shown this and thinks it to be a win. So this move must be shown >>wrong to prove the GM Rohde is right that the position is won by move 20. So far >>I don't see it, other then to see a win for white and for GM Rohde. > >The inaccuracy referred to is the claim that 23. Rxb4 is clearly winning. With >some backup variations, it might become clear, but it is far from it now. > >>>I currently think that White is not only alive and well after Rxb4, but probably >>>even better. However, "white is winning" is another matter entirely. >>> >>>>24.Rxe8?? >>>>The main positional mistake in my opinion. After this move Rebel is definitely >>>>lost in all variations. It gives away the crucial e-line. IMO Rebel should have >>>>played 24.Qd1 >>>> >>>>*Hiarcs7 plays the Ed's correct move 24. Qd1, but I have seen no line that shows >>>>24. Rxe8?? is losing.* >>> >>>Qd1 and Rxe8 lead to roughly (or exactly) the same position, don't they? >> >>I agree and said so. >>> >>>>26.f4? >>>>I don't now why Rebel10.5 played this move. It's just a matter of search depth >>>>to see this move is losing material on short term. Rebel10.5 needs 12 plies >>>>to see the loss and then changes to 26.Bg2 (the good move). I tested the >>>>current REBEL-CP on this position and nowhere in the log I see the uglyf4? >>>> >>>>*Hiarcs7 plays the correct 26. Bg2!!, and no line shown so far has been able to >> >>>>prove a win for Black after the correct 26. Bg2* >>> >>>Dave > >Dave
This page took 0.01 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.