On Apr 20, 5:36 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > > > 1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
> > > > > > 2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
> > > > > > 3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
> > > > > > 4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
> > > > > > 5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
> > > > > > 6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}
>
> > > > Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a
massive
> > > > advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
> > > > surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.
>
> I take that back. I had been assuming (incorrectly) that if it was a
> significant advantage to white that blundercheck would have added the
> relevant annotation. But since it didn't... I assumed there was
> something about it that I couldn't quite see.
>
> However, it seems looking more carefully at the opening book database
> move order 7. BxN is the *only* continuation given at that point. The
> game falls back into book territory further on by transposition.
When I try to utilize the online databases, they
only rarely give *quality* information. Sometimes
the problem is that losing moves are show with a
high winning percentage, and sometimes the
number of games reaching a particular position
are few, and of low standard. I expect the
commercial databases are much better, but I
neither wish to pay for something I rarely use,
nor do I like buying an older version to save
money, because I /know/ it's out-of-date!
> A proper ab initio analysis of this position with Shredder quickly
> concludes that BxN is 60cp better than the next best move Nc3, c4, h3,
> Bd2 (all at 0 +/-3). Rybka is a bit more conservative and gives a 40cp
> advantage with a preferred ordering of toher moves h3, Bd2, c4, Nc3,
> Bb3a3, Bg5, Re1 (all at 6+/-2).
>
> Rybka typically has a flatter evaluation function (like Fritz and
> Crafty). Shredder has an exaggerated sense of some structural features
> (which I think tends to guide it towards more human like play).
The very latest version of Shredder has toned
this down and they are breathing down Rybka's
neck on the ratings chart. But since Rybka is
not well-honed in the endgame and Shredder
(or Deep Shredder) has the fastest table-base
search around, perhaps both programs are
worth buying?
> > > After thinking about this a little more, I realized
> > > that the Knight need not be snatched before
> > > taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
> > > the King.
>
> > Whoa! Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
> > 5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.
>
> Oops. I really wish he would fix the =A3$#^$&% useless game notation. I
> find that the captures being shown as ordinary moves make life all but
> impossible for following the games without a board or a computer.
Only for us weak players. I hear (but I would
have no way of knowing) that strong players
can do all this stuff blindfolded, in their heads!
> > If Black has any plans of getting some real
> > compensation for hanging a center pawn in the
> > Ruy Lopez, he's better off with the Marshall
> > Gambit, IMO.
>
> The problem is that I used blundercheck and trusted it to annotate any
> dumb moves. Since it didn't annotate this I assumed incorrectly that
> it was sound (and inside the usually robust book horizon). I confess I
> didn't lok very hard at first.
Maybe "blundercheck" has a set limit, which
was just barely too high? Some of these
pesky programs refuse to admit when I have
won a pawn-- though they are not slow to
announce every $%&*(!@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mate-in-ten they
have in those rare (ahem) cases where I am
losing. You may be able to adjust the setting
so that -0.5 pawns shows up as a "blunder".
> The flaw is that when a move that is out of book is played (ie but the
> wrong order) blundercheck should run the engine and see if the
> sequence order alters the outcome significantly. Hitting a position
> that is in the opening book repertoire is not a sufficient test -
> there should be an option to cross check all the opening moves too
> (especially any where the move played is not on the approved book list
> for that ply - played out of order).
Thus far, I have managed to avoid any of
those kinds of problems by simply not
bothering to install an openings book. The
programs are all out-of-book, all the time.
The problem is that every game analysis
wastes time looking at oh, 1. e4 versus
1. d4 versus 1. Na3.
> I have noticed blundercheck sometimes misses clearly winning lines
> when used to annotate certain types of game. I presume it stems from
> having the cache polluted with moves from the suboptimal line actually
> played when the decsisive move is encountered in the backwards search
> down the tree.
I have been using "Arena" (instead of the
Fritz GUI), and it seems to help if I analyze
the game backwards, so the stupid program
can see how a true genius handled the
position.
-- help bot
|
