Author: blass uri
Date: 10:36:37 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1999 at 12:00:57, Tord Romstad wrote: >On October 22, 1999 at 05:04:42, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On October 21, 1999 at 23:01:15, Laurence Chen wrote: >> >>>This does not surprise me at all. I've seen this happens with other engines as >>>well. I don't think it is fair to pick on Fritz and accuse it that it's stupid >>>in analysis or it's very dumb, but the user behind it. It's like the old >>>saying, the blind leads the blind and they both fall off into the ditch. >>>Therefore, this is a warning sign to all users who relies solely and takes any >>>computer chess analysis as the ULTIMATE truth. I personally never take any chess >>>analysis to its face value, I always play another move, or another ply and see >>>if the evaluation changes dramatically. If it remains the same, then I know that >>>the assessment is correct, if it changes dramatically, then it's because of the >>>horizon effect which all chess engines suffer, and I would then conclude that >>>the chess engine is off in its evaluation. To someone new to chess engine this >>>may be a new revelation. Therefore the moral is one should never trust any >>>analysis of chess engines without further investigation. >>>Laurence >> >>When i have a car and it says there is enough fuel in the tank, >>i will NOT drive to a petrol-station. >>If this makes me suddenly stand without fuel .... i call this a >>shit car. and will bring it to a garage to repair it. >> >>I know enough programs who don't change the evaulation >>in such positions. >>i better use THESE programs. >>and call the others dump. > >The flaw of your car anology is that the evaluation of chess programs are >_never_ correct, unless they find a forced mate or draw. That a chess >programs evaluation function does not change after making a move does not >mean that the evaluation is anywhere close to the truth! Your own positional >understanding, Thorsten, is probably vastly superior to all the chess >programs you own. Unless the program finds a forced mate or win of material, >you should _never_ trust the evaluation. And when the program finds a line >which wins material, you should _always_ check the resulting positions >manually and consider if there is enough compensation for the material. > >If chess programs came with an option to evaluate material only, I would >probably switch this option on when using the program for analysis (to >optimise the tactical speed of the program). I think that you underestimate the positional ability of programs. I found that there are cases when the positional understanding of some programs was better than the positional understanding of myself(of course there are also cases when it is the opposite) and I am better than most of the players(my rating is close to 2000). 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.