Computerchess Misc (2)
Rolf Tueschen
Please try to concentrate yourself. Don't look into Usenet or Internet.
Just read the following question and try to find the answer as if you had
your final examination. So please the music not so loud.
Often I analyse chess games with my FRITZ computer program.
Sometimes FRITZ says "And the pawn will be a new queen".
Or FRITZ says "With the idea of 34.d5-d6 and then d6-d7."
But sometimes FRITZ says simply "=" or "+=".
Now the questions. Sheeeeeshhhhhhh.
(1) Do you see a difference in the three judgements?
(2) What is the value of such comments?
(3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
Advice: Please try to use your brain capacity to answer the three questions
with utmost logical precision. Excuse my strange advice. You will be
surprised, when you'll read my report about my own profit ...
Dennis Baker
questions, I'm going to need some kind of guarantee that I'm not wasting
my time, time better spent, say, staring in stupor at "The Wheel of
Fortune" or something...
In article <6spl1r$po9$2...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de says...
michael adams
>
> After the difficult topic in Misc (1) here a real one for beginners.
>
> Please try to concentrate yourself. Don't look into Usenet or Internet.
> Just read the following question and try to find the answer as if you had
> your final examination. So please the music not so loud.
>
> Often I analyse chess games with my FRITZ computer program.
>
> Sometimes FRITZ says "And the pawn will be a new queen".
>
> Or FRITZ says "With the idea of 34.d5-d6 and then d6-d7."
>
> But sometimes FRITZ says simply "=" or "+=".
>
> Now the questions. Sheeeeeshhhhhhh.
>
> (1) Do you see a difference in the three judgements?
>
> (2) What is the value of such comments?
>
> (3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
>
> Advice: Please try to use your brain capacity to answer the three questions
> with utmost logical precision. Excuse my strange advice. You will be
> surprised, when you'll read my report about my own profit ...
Butt'wirm,(Nietsche).
Chris Whittington
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6spl1r$po9$2...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...
>After the difficult topic in Misc (1) here a real one for beginners.
>
>
>Please try to concentrate yourself. Don't look into Usenet or Internet.
>Just read the following question and try to find the answer as if you had
>your final examination. So please the music not so loud.
>
>
>Often I analyse chess games with my FRITZ computer program.
>
>Sometimes FRITZ says "And the pawn will be a new queen".
>
>Or FRITZ says "With the idea of 34.d5-d6 and then d6-d7."
>
>But sometimes FRITZ says simply "=" or "+=".
>
>
>Now the questions. Sheeeeeshhhhhhh.
>
>
>(1) Do you see a difference in the three judgements?
Possibly. Probably not the same ones as you.
(a) and (b) are NOT Fritz comments. In that the engine didn't produce them.
They were made by a ply zero analyser, external to the engine, which
attempts to make intelligent statements about each move, based on quite a
deal of processing. This processing is not done during the search.
(c) probably is the Fritz engine. The language analyser didn't have anything
to say about he move (nothign active, or nothign matched in the pattern
recogniser), so they resorted to the engine score, mapped to = or += or
whatever. or maybe to the ply one analyser score.
>
>(2) What is the value of such comments?
On one side you can dismiss them as trivial. On the other you could say they
formed a proto-plan, maybe useful for diverting enduser thought patterns to
more fruitful areas than the usual beans (evaluation, best move but no
explanation, 20-0 into spreadsheet etc).
One not-value is that the comments come from a separate analyser and not the
engine. The Fritz move output and eval and best line are created usign a
different knowledge basis (engine search based) which will probably, often,
not match to the ply zero analyser.
>
>(3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
>
Proto-plan. Made simple for a beginner. Of course.
>
>Advice: Please try to use your brain capacity to answer the three questions
>with utmost logical precision. Excuse my strange advice. You will be
>surprised, when you'll read my report about my own profit ...
>
[ enter Hyatt Crafty-style self-promotion mode ]
There's a lot of this in the Win95 version of CSTal. Difference being we use
the CSTal engine data to make ply zero style comments about each move. And
this includes a whole load of king attack stuff that seems to be missing
from Fritz.
Plus the comments are related (tenuously) to the engien output, since both
use the same evaluator.
[ end of Hyatt self-promotion mode ]
Chris Whittington
>
>
>
>
Rolf Tueschen
>I don't know, Rolf. If I spend my "brain capacity" answering your 3
>questions, I'm going to need some kind of guarantee that I'm not wasting
>my time, time better spent, say, staring in stupor at "The Wheel of
>Fortune" or something...
You're welcome. Here's my word. There's no ridicule or irony hidden
whatsoever. It's a 99% serious chess question. Also no psycho trick or
whatever. No danger of AIDS involved.
I was refering to the ominous "brain capacity" because *normally* people
would answer all three questions with a spontaneous "of course". So as a
scientist I added something that might have turned *you* off because *you*
might have taken this almost as an *offense*. It's like the warning on your
pills "first ask your doctor or druggist...". In that case you won't
consult a quack ("Wheel of Fortune") out of protest either, no?
(But your valuable reply showed me another thing, Dennis. Rumours have a
long-ranged epidemic influence. All I can say is 'Live your own life!' You
can make it **if** you want.) :)
Rolf Tueschen
>Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6spl1r$po9$2...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...
>>After the difficult topic in Misc (1) here a real one for beginners.
>>
>>
>>Please try to concentrate yourself. Don't look into Usenet or Internet.
>>Just read the following question and try to find the answer as if you had
>>your final examination. So please the music not so loud.
>>
>>
>>Often I analyse chess games with my FRITZ computer program.
>>
>>Sometimes FRITZ says "And the pawn will be a new queen".
>>
>>Or FRITZ says "With the idea of 34.d5-d6 and then d6-d7."
>>
>>But sometimes FRITZ says simply "=" or "+=".
>>
>>
>>Now the questions. Sheeeeeshhhhhhh.
>>
>>
>>(1) Do you see a difference in the three judgements?
>Possibly. Probably not the same ones as you.
>(a) and (b) are NOT Fritz comments. In that the engine didn't produce them.
>They were made by a ply zero analyser, external to the engine, which
>attempts to make intelligent statements about each move, based on quite a
>deal of processing. This processing is not done during the search.
Chris, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I agree. Fritz ply zero and a half
analyser. Now take a real GM as analyser. Would you accept or tolerate him
as deeper analyser?
>(c) probably is the Fritz engine. The language analyser didn't have anything
>to say about he move (nothign active, or nothign matched in the pattern
>recogniser), so they resorted to the engine score, mapped to = or += or
>whatever. or maybe to the ply one analyser score.
Again. If the =+ came from my GM analyser, would it be a valuable judgement
for you personally?
>>
>>(2) What is the value of such comments?
>On one side you can dismiss them as trivial. On the other you could say they
>formed a proto-plan, maybe useful for diverting enduser thought patterns to
>more fruitful areas than the usual beans (evaluation, best move but no
>explanation, 20-0 into spreadsheet etc).
As above. If a real GM gave the *same* short statements, then the influence
on enduser thought patterns might be better/deeper?
>One not-value is that the comments come from a separate analyser and not the
>engine. The Fritz move output and eval and best line are created usign a
>different knowledge basis (engine search based) which will probably, often,
>not match to the ply zero analyser.
>>
>>(3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
>>
>Proto-plan. Made simple for a beginner. Of course.
What is the value of such a = or +- in real? Is it more than a symbolic
belief in the name of the judging GM? Give me another answer. Did you ever
profit from such a verdict at the end of a special line? That was my most
imoportant question.
>>
>>Advice: Please try to use your brain capacity to answer the three questions
>>with utmost logical precision. Excuse my strange advice. You will be
>>surprised, when you'll read my report about my own profit ...
>>
>[ enter Hyatt Crafty-style self-promotion mode ]
>There's a lot of this in the Win95 version of CSTal. Difference being we use
>the CSTal engine data to make ply zero style comments about each move.
That would be better then.
>And
>this includes a whole load of king attack stuff that seems to be missing
>from Fritz.
And others ...
>Plus the comments are related (tenuously) to the engien output, since both
>use the same evaluator.
Chris, then I must admit that I was fooled by FRITZ judgements all the time
because I thought he made the comments along the engine's evaluations ...
I never read anything about it. You see, it's not bad to be on talking
terms ... Maybe a small step for mankind but an important one for newbie
Rolf.
>[ end of Hyatt self-promotion mode ]
I see a *huge* difference between *your* content-related info and Ed
Schroder's promotional flyer about Anti-GM whatsoever ... ;-)
>Chris Whittington
>>
>>
>>
>>
Dennis Baker
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de says...
> dbaker0...@ibm.net (Dennis Baker) wrote:
>
> >I don't know, Rolf. If I spend my "brain capacity" answering your 3
> >questions, I'm going to need some kind of guarantee that I'm not wasting
> >my time, time better spent, say, staring in stupor at "The Wheel of
> >Fortune" or something...
>
> You're welcome. Here's my word. There's no ridicule or irony hidden
> whatsoever. It's a 99% serious chess question. Also no psycho trick or
> whatever. No danger of AIDS involved.
>
> I was refering to the ominous "brain capacity" because *normally* people
> would answer all three questions with a spontaneous "of course". So as a
> scientist I added something that might have turned *you* off because *you*
> might have taken this almost as an *offense*. It's like the warning on your
> pills "first ask your doctor or druggist...". In that case you won't
> consult a quack ("Wheel of Fortune") out of protest either, no?
I was suggesting, perhaps much too subtly, that you were indulging the
rest of us in a time-wasting activity of no consequence... In other
words, what's the point?
> (But your valuable reply showed me another thing, Dennis. Rumours have a
> long-ranged epidemic influence. All I can say is 'Live your own life!' You
> can make it **if** you want.) :)
Oh I've been living my own life for some time now. That's how I've ended
up in so much trouble :)
Dennis Baker
godel on ICC
Chris Whittington
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6sr7c9$735$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>"Chris Whittington" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6spl1r$po9$2...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...
>>>After the difficult topic in Misc (1) here a real one for beginners.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please try to concentrate yourself. Don't look into Usenet or Internet.
>>>Just read the following question and try to find the answer as if you had
>>>your final examination. So please the music not so loud.
>>>
>>>
>>>Often I analyse chess games with my FRITZ computer program.
>>>
>>>Sometimes FRITZ says "And the pawn will be a new queen".
>>>
>>>Or FRITZ says "With the idea of 34.d5-d6 and then d6-d7."
>>>
>>>But sometimes FRITZ says simply "=" or "+=".
>>>
>>>
>>>Now the questions. Sheeeeeshhhhhhh.
>>>
>>>
>>>(1) Do you see a difference in the three judgements?
>
>>Possibly. Probably not the same ones as you.
>
>>(a) and (b) are NOT Fritz comments. In that the engine didn't produce
them.
>>They were made by a ply zero analyser, external to the engine, which
>>attempts to make intelligent statements about each move, based on quite a
>>deal of processing. This processing is not done during the search.
>
>Chris, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I agree. Fritz ply zero and a half
>analyser. Now take a real GM as analyser. Would you accept or tolerate him
>as deeper analyser?
Real GM would have cool stuff to say that I wouldn't have thought of. Sure.
Therefore useful.
>
>>(c) probably is the Fritz engine. The language analyser didn't have
anything
>>to say about he move (nothign active, or nothign matched in the pattern
>>recogniser), so they resorted to the engine score, mapped to = or += or
>>whatever. or maybe to the ply one analyser score.
>
>Again. If the =+ came from my GM analyser, would it be a valuable judgement
>for you personally?
>
Especially if it differed from my own judgement. Would cause me (assuming I
was in the mood) to think again, or deeper, or why.
>>>
>>>(2) What is the value of such comments?
>
>>On one side you can dismiss them as trivial. On the other you could say
they
>>formed a proto-plan, maybe useful for diverting enduser thought patterns
to
>>more fruitful areas than the usual beans (evaluation, best move but no
>>explanation, 20-0 into spreadsheet etc).
>
>As above. If a real GM gave the *same* short statements, then the influence
>on enduser thought patterns might be better/deeper?
Are you developing a sort of GM-fascism ? One where GM commetns are treated
as more serious that the rest ? Possibly true in many cases, but sometimes,
even a fool ....
>
>>One not-value is that the comments come from a separate analyser and not
the
>>engine. The Fritz move output and eval and best line are created usign a
>>different knowledge basis (engine search based) which will probably,
often,
>>not match to the ply zero analyser.
>
>>>
>>>(3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
>>>
>
>>Proto-plan. Made simple for a beginner. Of course.
>
>What is the value of such a = or +- in real? Is it more than a symbolic
>belief in the name of the judging GM? Give me another answer. Did you ever
>profit from such a verdict at the end of a special line? That was my most
>imoportant question.
>
Most recent was when watching Anand Rebel on icc. 2nd game. I think I was
the first to say "win for Anand". Much of that view was based on the fact
that Anand was playing, there was a crazy imbalance coming, and I figured
Anand knew something the rest didn't. In other words I knew there were
things I didn't know about the position, but gave Anand the credit as a GM
that he knew. Hyatt and co just went with the +2.4 pawns evals of the prgs.
That's cos Hyatt and co don't know that they don't know that they don't know
:)
Smart minds will see that a similar process operates with Rolf.
>
>>>
>>>Advice: Please try to use your brain capacity to answer the three
questions
>>>with utmost logical precision. Excuse my strange advice. You will be
>>>surprised, when you'll read my report about my own profit ...
>>>
>
>>[ enter Hyatt Crafty-style self-promotion mode ]
>
>>There's a lot of this in the Win95 version of CSTal. Difference being we
use
>>the CSTal engine data to make ply zero style comments about each move.
>
>That would be better then.
>
>>And
>>this includes a whole load of king attack stuff that seems to be missing
>>from Fritz.
>
>And others ...
>
>>Plus the comments are related (tenuously) to the engien output, since both
>>use the same evaluator.
>
>Chris, then I must admit that I was fooled by FRITZ judgements all the time
>because I thought he made the comments along the engine's evaluations ...
>I never read anything about it. You see, it's not bad to be on talking
>terms ... Maybe a small step for mankind but an important one for newbie
>Rolf.
I think they may follow the best line, trying to make ply one judegments at
each node and trying to link the nodes into a 'plan'. Then they are using
the engine, so we musn't be too unfair on them. But for sure the ply zero
nodal analysis is not from the engine.
>
>>[ end of Hyatt self-promotion mode ]
>
>I see a *huge* difference between *your* content-related info and Ed
>Schroder's promotional flyer about Anti-GM whatsoever ... ;-)
I've hardly been open. But, true, Ed's anti-gm is presented in total woffle
mode. I always assumed he was copying the cstal king attack function btw.
Chris Whittington
>
>>Chris Whittington
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Robert Hyatt
: Most recent was when watching Anand Rebel on icc. 2nd game. I think I was
: the first to say "win for Anand". Much of that view was based on the fact
: that Anand was playing, there was a crazy imbalance coming, and I figured
: Anand knew something the rest didn't. In other words I knew there were
: things I didn't know about the position, but gave Anand the credit as a GM
: that he knew. Hyatt and co just went with the +2.4 pawns evals of the prgs.
: That's cos Hyatt and co don't know that they don't know that they don't know
: :)
here's some advice, which you sorely need. Why don't you learn to think
for yourself, and to discuss a point without trying to toss insults? IE
I am quite capable of writing a hundred posts over a period of a week,
without mentioning *your* name in a one. Look back over the weeks when
you are absent... I don't continually use your name in every post.
you have a serious ego problem. And it shows. Try writing something to
someone here *without* referring to me. I do the same for you all the
time. If you don't like my program, tough. I don't like yours. If you
don't like my results, fine. I don't like yours. If you don't like me,
fine, I don't like you. But keep it out of the newsgroup. This isn't some
nursery school...
BTW, your +2.4 comment was wrong. Anand thought this was winnable by white
until Rebel pushed the h pawn. He published some analysis, or else made a
verbal comment, maybe to Ed. So much for your "bean counting". As I said,
you definitely have a problem with me. But how about keeping it out of a
public newsgroup? This sort of crap is best sent via email.
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Rolf Tueschen
Chris, than you. Will you please keep this statement upright for the next
hours? I have a little surprise for you.
>>
>>>(c) probably is the Fritz engine. The language analyser didn't have
>anything
>>>to say about he move (nothign active, or nothign matched in the pattern
>>>recogniser), so they resorted to the engine score, mapped to = or += or
>>>whatever. or maybe to the ply one analyser score.
>>
>>Again. If the =+ came from my GM analyser, would it be a valuable judgement
>>for you personally?
>>
>Especially if it differed from my own judgement. Would cause me (assuming I
>was in the mood) to think again, or deeper, or why.
Of course. But you wouls say that such a comment from the pen of a GM is
worthy to notice, right? Ok, thanks again, Chris. :)
>>>>
>>>>(2) What is the value of such comments?
>>
>>>On one side you can dismiss them as trivial. On the other you could say
>they
>>>formed a proto-plan, maybe useful for diverting enduser thought patterns
>to
>>>more fruitful areas than the usual beans (evaluation, best move but no
>>>explanation, 20-0 into spreadsheet etc).
>>
>>As above. If a real GM gave the *same* short statements, then the influence
>>on enduser thought patterns might be better/deeper?
>Are you developing a sort of GM-fascism ? One where GM commetns are treated
>as more serious that the rest ? Possibly true in many cases, but sometimes,
>even a fool ....
Please!! How could you even think like that?
I told you that I had a surprise for you.
>>
>>>One not-value is that the comments come from a separate analyser and not
>the
>>>engine. The Fritz move output and eval and best line are created usign a
>>>different knowledge basis (engine search based) which will probably,
>often,
>>>not match to the ply zero analyser.
>>
>>>>
>>>>(3) Did *you* ever profit from such wisdom in your own chess career?
>>>>
>>
>>>Proto-plan. Made simple for a beginner. Of course.
>>
>>What is the value of such a = or +- in real? Is it more than a symbolic
>>belief in the name of the judging GM? Give me another answer. Did you ever
>>profit from such a verdict at the end of a special line? That was my most
>>imoportant question.
>>
>Most recent was when watching Anand Rebel on icc. 2nd game. I think I was
>the first to say "win for Anand". Much of that view was based on the fact
>that Anand was playing, there was a crazy imbalance coming, and I figured
>Anand knew something the rest didn't. In other words I knew there were
>things I didn't know about the position, but gave Anand the credit as a GM
>that he knew. Hyatt and co just went with the +2.4 pawns evals of the prgs.
>That's cos Hyatt and co don't know that they don't know that they don't know
>:)
But we all knew this since long, Chris. But compared with a real GM we're
all little newbies here in computerchess.
That's my point. And it will be the center of my surprise.
>Smart minds will see that a similar process operates with Rolf.
Of course. :)
Imbalance or "Imbruglia" is the most important thing in the world of male
chess.
But it's still true that you, Chris, would say that a "+=" from a GM or IM,
well, say at least an expert, *would* be a damned useful ansd valuable
comment for the chess lurkers all over the world, right?
Before the Atomic Explosion please send me a short "Yes, Pope Rolf" here
into this thread of Misc (2). Thanks.
That's a profound theory of yours again. I think (sic!) computerchess is
still the same like 30 years ago. A few features, but mainly it was a
question of hardware. I see only one revolutionary attempt and that's the
knowledge pattern oriented Botvinnik/Whittington approach. I can only
repeat myself. This approach will be the future standard in combination
with a new hardware out of bio-fluid based stuff instead of overheated
silicon.
>Chris Whittington
>>
>>>Chris Whittington
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Rolf Tueschen
> In other words, what's the point?
That's the point!
I told you that I would give you my version *soon*.
Only if you had taken part, Dennis, you could enjoy the whole beauty of my
answer. That's for sure! (Ok, I count your contribution from a meta-level.
Allowed?)
>Oh I've been living my own life for some time now. That's how I've ended
>up in so much trouble :)
Stay tuned for a few seconds of your independant life! I have a surprise
for you too.
>Dennis Baker
>godel on ICC
Rolf
Pope on rgcc :)
Rolf Tueschen
>In rec.games.chess.computer Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: Most recent was when watching Anand Rebel on icc. 2nd game. I think I was
>: the first to say "win for Anand". Much of that view was based on the fact
>: that Anand was playing, there was a crazy imbalance coming, and I figured
>: Anand knew something the rest didn't. In other words I knew there were
>: things I didn't know about the position, but gave Anand the credit as a GM
>: that he knew. Hyatt and co just went with the +2.4 pawns evals of the prgs.
>: That's cos Hyatt and co don't know that they don't know that they don't know
>: :)
>here's some advice, which you sorely need. Why don't you learn to think
>for yourself, and to discuss a point without trying to toss insults? IE
>I am quite capable of writing a hundred posts over a period of a week,
>without mentioning *your* name in a one. Look back over the weeks when
>you are absent... I don't continually use your name in every post.
>you have a serious ego problem. And it shows. Try writing something to
>someone here *without* referring to me. I do the same for you all the
>time. If you don't like my program, tough. I don't like yours. If you
>don't like my results, fine. I don't like yours. If you don't like me,
>fine, I don't like you. But keep it out of the newsgroup. This isn't some
>nursery school...
>BTW, your +2.4 comment was wrong. Anand thought this was winnable by white
>until Rebel pushed the h pawn. He published some analysis, or else made a
>verbal comment, maybe to Ed. So much for your "bean counting". As I said,
>you definitely have a problem with me. But how about keeping it out of a
>public newsgroup? This sort of crap is best sent via email.
BTW could you concentrate on the main topic of this thread? It's about the
meaning of a "+=" in a game given by an expert or GM. Is that a valuable
info for you personally? I still wait for an answer.
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt wrote in message <6sroge$ph1$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...>: Most recent was when watching Anand Rebel on icc. 2nd game. I think I was
>: the first to say "win for Anand". Much of that view was based on the fact
>: that Anand was playing, there was a crazy imbalance coming, and I figured
>: Anand knew something the rest didn't. In other words I knew there were
>: things I didn't know about the position, but gave Anand the credit as a
GM
>: that he knew. Hyatt and co just went with the +2.4 pawns evals of the
prgs.
>: That's cos Hyatt and co don't know that they don't know that they don't
know
>: :)
>
>
>for yourself, and to discuss a point without trying to toss insults? IE
>I am quite capable of writing a hundred posts over a period of a week,
>without mentioning *your* name in a one. Look back over the weeks when
>you are absent... I don't continually use your name in every post.
>
>you have a serious ego problem. And it shows. Try writing something to
>someone here *without* referring to me. I do the same for you all the
>time. If you don't like my program, tough. I don't like yours. If you
>don't like my results, fine. I don't like yours. If you don't like me,
>fine, I don't like you. But keep it out of the newsgroup. This isn't some
>nursery school...
>
>BTW, your +2.4 comment was wrong. Anand thought this was winnable by white
>until Rebel pushed the h pawn. He published some analysis, or else made a
>verbal comment, maybe to Ed. So much for your "bean counting". As I said,
>you definitely have a problem with me. But how about keeping it out of a
>public newsgroup? This sort of crap is best sent via email.
>
Hyatt. You are the greatest off-topic generator in this newsgroup. Whether
it be your constant references to anal stimulation. Your penis size
arguments that you started on Tom Kerrigan. Your murderous gasolining
threads. Your numerous lies. Your violent baseball-bat fantasies. Your
numerous character assassinations. Your murderous dismemberment threads.
Your endless self-promotion. Your mono-maniacal Hyattian paradigm. Your
declaration that de Groot is off-topic. Your failure to do anything but
recycle the same tired old crap.
And now you take this perfectly sensible thread and start pissing around as
usual.
Grow up or swan off back to fools forum. There you can spout any old lies
with safety. Here you have to answer for them.
So kindly make a sensible contribution if you can.
And, I stick to my contention that "you don't know that you don't know".
Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6ss6t2$gga$2...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
Yes, but ...
1. If I didn't understand why it was +=, I'ld want an explanation
2. And no program GM strength or otherwise can give me any explanation,
other than its best line. Bestline-ism is a disaster for humans, because it
is NO understanding. But they think they learn understanding from them.
Yes but Pope :)
Chris Whittington
Sean Evans
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<905029922.12392.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hyatt. You are the greatest off-topic generator in this newsgroup. Whether
>it be your constant references to anal stimulation. Your penis size
>arguments that you started on Tom Kerrigan. Your murderous gasolining
>threads. Your numerous lies. Your violent baseball-bat fantasies. Your
>numerous character assassinations. Your murderous dismemberment threads.
>Your endless self-promotion. Your mono-maniacal Hyattian paradigm. Your
>declaration that de Groot is off-topic. Your failure to do anything but
>recycle the same tired old crap.
>
>And now you take this perfectly sensible thread and start pissing around as
>usual.
>
>Grow up or swan off back to fools forum. There you can spout any old lies
>with safety. Here you have to answer for them.
>
>So kindly make a sensible contribution if you can.
>
>And, I stick to my contention that "you don't know that you don't know".
>
>Chris Whittington
Well written and congratulations on words so true. But I would point out I
don't think anyone hates Hyatt (my opinion) including *me*, but the words
above point out why Hyatt becomes entangled in so many threads. Compulsive
Obsessive may also be one, but I suffer from the same thing just not as
strongly.
Regards,
Sean
Robert Hyatt
: Hyatt. You are the greatest off-topic generator in this newsgroup. Whether
: it be your constant references to anal stimulation. Your penis size
: arguments that you started on Tom Kerrigan.
Why don't you go dig that up in Deja... you might be surprised that *I*
don't refer to that body part. That was something *Tom* wrote... Please
either be accurate or be silent. As opposed to your normal loud and wrong.
: Your murderous gasolining
: threads. Your numerous lies. Your violent baseball-bat fantasies. Your
: numerous character assassinations. Your murderous dismemberment threads.
: Your endless self-promotion. Your mono-maniacal Hyattian paradigm. Your
: declaration that de Groot is off-topic. Your failure to do anything but
: recycle the same tired old crap.
Why don't you read? Can't? Never said "De Groot is off topic". I said that
a 1 sentence mention about DeGroot serves *no* useful purpose. 90% of the
people reading here probably have heard of "Thought and Choice in Chess."
And everyone pretty well agrees that it is interesting, but does *not* say
*anything* about how a human chooses a chess move. He was unable to figure
that out..
: And now you take this perfectly sensible thread and start pissing around as
: usual.
Right.... perfectly sensible... no pot shots directed toward me at all,
right? Thought so... Guess "hyattian" was referring to another Hyatt,
no doubt?
: Grow up or swan off back to fools forum. There you can spout any old lies
: with safety. Here you have to answer for them.
Ditto. still waiting for your response to your "stalled search" nonsense.
Again, I provide data. Again you go silent. Typical..
: So kindly make a sensible contribution if you can.
I believe I did...
: And, I stick to my contention that "you don't know that you don't know".
You certainly have the necessary qualification to make that statement, because
what you don't know (but imagine) would fill a book.
: Chris Whittington
Torstein
Sean Evans wrote in message ...
>>it be your constant references to anal stimulation. Your penis size
>>threads. Your numerous lies. Your violent baseball-bat fantasies. Your
>>numerous character assassinations. Your murderous dismemberment threads.
>>Your endless self-promotion. Your mono-maniacal Hyattian paradigm. Your
>>declaration that de Groot is off-topic. Your failure to do anything but
>>recycle the same tired old crap.
>>
as
>>usual.
>>
>>with safety. Here you have to answer for them.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Well written and congratulations on words so true. But I would point out I
>don't think anyone hates Hyatt (my opinion) including *me*, but the words
>above point out why Hyatt becomes entangled in so many threads. Compulsive
>Obsessive may also be one, but I suffer from the same thing just not as
>strongly.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sean
What was it CW normaly calls this? Brown nosing?
I think it fits perfectly here anyway....
Torstein
Rolf Tueschen
Hyatt!) don't show up again after the solutions have been presented.
First of all I want to thank Chris Whittington for his detailed and
congenious comments. Again Chris showed his outstanding class. Not because
he found a new explanation difficult like mega rocket science, but because
he showed a total absence of arrogance. I knew very well that my questions
were easy ones. I had announced them for beginners. But real beginners
didn't answer. Obviously the very basic are the most "difficult" questions.
We all use certain answers almost unconciously. But if we should talk about
it's as if we should explain the details of our mother's language. We all
know the details more or less well but we can't teach it -- if we're not
teachers. That's why my questions would have been a good field for
academics like Bob Hyatt. Bob, who even with his low Elo taught people
about the deeper wisdom of the Ruy Lopez. (!)
Here's my personal confession.
Yes, I used the lines in the opening books ending with +/- or += as a
guidline for my own repertoire. I had a time when I learnt all that by
heart and believed that I had a wisdom to meet any other player with. In my
early youth I even played a special variation of the Open Ruy against a
former Wch. Thus entering into a line that he had used in the 30s. And the
same variation appeared years later in the Anand vs. Kasparov Wch. You know
the game where Anand almost fell into a trap/novelty in move 16 or was it
19 of that opening?
So any statements like "White has a slight advantage" or just "+=" were for
me what traffic lights are for all "Greyhound" busdrivers.
Today I know that my task should have started at the end of these lines
with my own study. Because then I wouldn't have been so surprised when some
"patzers" were even too stupid to follow the "golden" lines given by the
experts I had in mind. They simply *digressed* from my main subject. And
suddenly I had to do all the study OTB. No wonder that I had a hard time to
become a GM myself. However, if I had learnt from that game quoted above I
would have understood that all the openings are followed by a middle game
and then followed by the ending. BTW, that's why I lost to the Wch. After
my tremendous storm had come to a natural end after some exchanges I still
had my everlasting pawn weaknesses. With the exception of this Wch (almost)
everybody had lost the game exactly in my storming attacks.
Today the displayed evals of my computer programs are important signs for
me. But that's another chapter. I still must digest Chris' hint that Fritz
displayed sort of fake judgement on the base of seperate algorithm.
Ah, I almost forgot to mention my little surprise. The Atomic Explosion.
Well before I give that little add as P.S. let me thank you for your
attention. Next time I will give something for the more advanced audience
again. (I skip here the detailed differences between a verbial judgement
and a shorter with the famous INFORMATOR signs. Nobody really discussed
that. Probably it's a problem for real linguists.)
Have fun in computerchess, folks!
Pope Rolf :)
P.S.
It's good to know that an overwhelming majoritty thinks that a commentary
like "+=" whether it comes from an expert master or a computer program, is
an important information for us chess lurkers. What we make out of this
information is our very personal stuff. But nobody would deny that a
certain line ending with a "+/-" is normally a winner among real experts.
So let's keep in mind that such a judgement is a valuable information from
an expert.
That said I have a tiny add-on for all the "Rolf groupies" all over the
world.
Some time ago I mentioned that Ed Schroder had stolen data in his
Millionbase CD. I told you that the stolen material came from the famous
INFORMATOR.
Now, if you did ever look into such an INFORMANT you will know that many
commented games contained many sub games up to a certain move (mostly into
the 16 to 25 moves) and ended with a judgement of the commenting GM or IM.
Now, if the producing company ChessBase always had included such extra
"games" in the original manner Ed Schroder wouldn't have the stolen data in
his Millionbase because he published only properly deleted raw game scores
without any comments or variations. But ChessBase did publish thwe
INFORMATOR with seperated "extra" games out of the original game. These
extra games don't contain any commentary other than the judgement in the
end. But this judgement of course is an original comment of an expert.
So, this is the answer on all the mega smart freaks like Bob Hyatt who
cried wolf against my postings about the stolen data in Ed Schroder's
Millionbase. Bob, Di Tolla and Ed Suastegui and all others overlooked that
while certainly a complete (naked) game score had (not yet!) a copyright
but that a short extract of the oprening line with a final judgement (!!)
of an expert is quite well fitting the copyright law. NB that the judgement
after the opening must not necessarily equal the final score. It was and
still is a special high class of the INFORMATOR that they gave only the
interesting opening moves of a game that later was *spoiled* through
horrible blunders in zeitnot for instance.
I did never say tha5t Ed Schroder had stolen the data himself. But he as a
businessman had included the stolen data into his Millionbase without a
recompensation for the eager former-Jugoslavian team in Belgrad.
And also without recompensation for the ChessBase disks that contained
exactly that stolen data material.
I'm quite sure that Ed Schroder personally did not intend to do that.
PPS.
It would be a nice gesture if all those who commented their ignorant crap
on my original postings would apologize to me in all friendship. Not that I
needed such a support. For *me* the record in Dejas is important and
nothing else. But it would be a nice gesture for the actual climate in our
little community where many good spirits have lost themselves in a
commercial deaden street called CCC/ICD.
PPPS.
Someone once said "You can't fake intelligence". Well said. Let's keep that
in our minds. To prevent that *we* (or *us* :)) end barfooted in a court
like "Zwolle" or a private club like "CCC/ICD". :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>After the difficult topic in Misc (1) here a real one for beginners.
[..]
Rolf Tueschen
Is it still allowed to remind you that this is a c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r-c-h-e-s-s
thread about some F-r-i-t-z-i-a-n (*not* Hyattian) commentaries? What did
you personally profit from such "pawn queening" or "+-"? Or don't you play
chess yourself? Please try to find an answer on my three questions.
Or is it just for defaming/terrorizing others that you show up in rgcc for
24 hours a day? You're not eventually starting to go through a second
puberty, no? Again, this is a computerchess newsgroup. Stop misbehaving
here. Put your obsessions into email. I think you have my adress.
But first of all try to find an answer for the topic of this thread.
Robert Hyatt
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>In rec.games.chess.computer Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>: And, I stick to my contention that "you don't know that you don't know".
:>You certainly have the necessary qualification to make that statement, because
:>what you don't know (but imagine) would fill a book.
: Is it still allowed to remind you that this is a c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r-c-h-e-s-s
: thread about some F-r-i-t-z-i-a-n (*not* Hyattian) commentaries? What did
: you personally profit from such "pawn queening" or "+-"? Or don't you play
: chess yourself? Please try to find an answer on my three questions.
I discussed what I thought about "computer commentary" a couple of months
ago, and it hasn't changed one iota. Computers can prove that a move is good
or bad, given enough time. But they have no clue about the "whys and wherefores"
because of the way alpha/beta works. There are most likely better ways of
searching if you need to extract this information, because alpha/beta clearly
does not provide it. So the current search strategy used by everyone is
hopeless.
Adding on some sort of "root" processor is just glossing over the problems,
because that "root processor" might find some good comments here and there,
but it will *never* know why the search really chose a move as best. IE it
might give the usual "attacks white's knight" rather than what really happened,
"made white's knight move, so that the rook can be driven away by the bishop,
so that white can't get the rook to e7 along with the queen at d7 to occupy
the 7th rank with devastating results."
The reason why this can't be done is that none of the above might show up in
the actual PV, because it *works* and the 7th rank occupation doesn't happen.
And a "processor" that looks at the score, the PV, and the root position, won't
ever have a clue about this...
So, from a computer, +=, or -+ are about the best you are going to get, and
they are wrong often enough to not trust them. IE I have seen many programs
go from +5 to -5 in 1 move, or go from -5 to +Mate in one move...
: Or is it just for defaming/terrorizing others that you show up in rgcc for
: 24 hours a day? You're not eventually starting to go through a second
: puberty, no? Again, this is a computerchess newsgroup. Stop misbehaving
: here. Put your obsessions into email. I think you have my adress.
I don't have any "obsessions" unless you count computer chess. Chris seems
to have one, because he can hardly write a post without making a direct jab
at me (Hyattian reasoning or some such) or an indirect jab (another flaw in
the "bean counter" paradigm). I respond to those. Otherwise, I let him alone
except for when he either posts something interesting that is worth discussing,
or he posts something that I disagree with based on observed conditions (the
"stalled" search for an example).
: But first of all try to find an answer for the topic of this thread.
Rolf Tueschen
[to the meaning of computer program evals; thanks for the late answer]
>I don't have any "obsessions" unless you count computer chess.
If we only could concentrate on our main fields, then we could accept that
in other fierlds others might be better experts.
>Chris seems
>to have one, because he can hardly write a post without making a direct jab
>at me (Hyattian reasoning or some such) or an indirect jab (another flaw in
>the "bean counter" paradigm). I respond to those.
Yes, it appears for you like that. But that doesn't mean that it's really
happening like that.
I can only say what I could observe. Also for me the two *topics* must have
a chance to be freely discussed. That's number one. Number two then. If you
could seperate your personal existence and how you recognise yourself from
the topics as such you could be a much better referrence. It wouldn't take
a rocket scientist to provide you with marvelous examples of postings from
your adress out of the year 1996 where you always kept a true academic
sophisticated style while you obviously follow right now a personal
vendetta/agenda. As if you personally were involved. But note well that
nobody, or almost nobody does know your very private person. I'm sure that
you also realise that many of your off-topic statements in the long run
brought sort of a shdow over your status. Therefore I can't understand why
you can't close the old stuff with a generous comment in all directions and
then begin a new period. The problem Chris is pointing at with all the
rights, is your lack of respect for attempts that were in your eyes not
worthwhile. A little bit more obligingness and you could preserve the same
opinions. It's not that you have theses opinions but the way you seem to
defame (perhaps a better notion mifght exist) opposite oppinions is simply
not high class. But you as academic should know that each theory has at
least some worthy contents. It would be your task to present the good sides
in full light and not to defame the person behind the theories in bad light
because some other theories seem to be more successful actually.
You should contact Bruce more often. It's simply this. If you enter each
and every little war yourself with all your authority then you lose it in
the end. Authority lives from a tolerant concentration on the most
important topics. Otherwise it's degegenerating into something that you
personally don't want either, I'm quite sure about.
>Otherwise, I let him alone
>except for when he either posts something interesting that is worth discussing,
>or he posts something that I disagree with based on observed conditions (the
>"stalled" search for an example).
I think Chris has earned a much more closer cooperation than that. But I'm
still an observer.
Serge Desmarais
When I analyze games (that I played or not) I put the verbal commentaries myself, from what is shown in
the PV. Or I add the symbol "with the idea of". As for the evaluation's worthyness, I usually extend the lines
until the position is quite stable (no check or pieces "en prise") by entering the first 3 moves whose
evaluation is close and then letting the program search until a certain depth is reached (usually 11-12 plies)
at every half-move. Then I go back and do the same for every subvariations I started. So, often, I discover
that line #2 or #3 is better than the one preferred by the program at first. Once it is finished, I do a clean
up by removing useless or inferior sublines to get a more readable variation.
Serge Desmarais
Sean Evans
Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F2E2...@total.net>...
>Serge Desmarais
Please tell me are you a Canadian or a Bloc Quebec quires Separatist.
Regards,
The Apostle Sean
Serge Desmarais
What does any political opinion has to do with the subject????? And
would you like to know my favorite colour too? And my favorite music
group/composer? And if I am a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim? Or if I am
black, yellow or blue???
Serge Desmarais
Sean Evans
Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F2F8...@total.net>...
> What does any political opinion has to do with the subject????? And
>would you like to know my favorite colour too? And my favorite music
>group/composer? And if I am a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim? Or if I am
>black, yellow or blue???
>
>Serge Desmarais
Nice try Separatist!
Regards,
The Canadian Apostle Sean
Serge Desmarais
Now I see why you have so big a fan club on the Internet! You are mister Perfect and ANY comment about what
you say and that doesn't go your way is made by a black/blue/yellow guy and so has no value. Or then with
such a name he muss be a Muslim which means an integrist so he has no right to attack me. Now, Mr. Desmarais,
with such a name must be a fan of the Bloc Quebecois/Liberal Party/NPD/Conservative Party and so his comments
aren't worthy of consideration. Another time the comments were made by a woman and women have no rights to
speak? Of course that is ALWAYS the others who start attacking you. Didn't you say in a previous post that you
were never insulting to Robert Hyatt and others? :)
By the way, attacking someone because his/her gender, skin colour, religion, political opinion is forbidden
by the law (at least in Canada)... Just in case you did not know. And avoiding these subjects is also a good
trick to make some friends. :)
Serge Desmarais
Rolf Tueschen
> When I analyze games (that I played or not) I put the verbal commentaries myself, from what is shown in
>the PV. Or I add the symbol "with the idea of". As for the evaluation's worthyness, I usually extend the lines
>until the position is quite stable (no check or pieces "en prise") by entering the first 3 moves whose
>evaluation is close and then letting the program search until a certain depth is reached (usually 11-12 plies)
>at every half-move. Then I go back and do the same for every subvariations I started. So, often, I discover
>that line #2 or #3 is better than the one preferred by the program at first. Once it is finished, I do a clean
>up by removing useless or inferior sublines to get a more readable variation.
Thanks for that one. Unfotunately I can't do this because I like to have a
record of all the machines I used myself. That way I was able to recognize
the similarity of Fritz5 with the strong Fritz2. Do you remmber? While 3
and 4 always have a different variation, 5 comes back to 2. It's so obvious
wehn you have the output together.
I also add the GENIUS analysis from 3 and 4. It's a pity that you can't add
Rebel so easily. Then it would be a real hype. Or is it possible to
convert, I mean the analysis.
>Serge Desmarais
Sean Evans
Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F2FF...@total.net>...
>Didn't you say in a previous post that you were never insulting to Robert
Hyatt and others? :)
No never said that! I can take it and I can dish it out!
> By the way, attacking someone because his/her gender, skin colour,
religion, >political opinion is forbidden by the law (at least in Canada)...
Just in case you did
>not know.
If your political opinion is Separatism I will be *attacking* you I
*guarantee* that!
Don't recall making fun of your gender, skin colour or religion.
> And avoiding these subjects is also a good trick to make some friends. :)
Not sure what you mean with that sentence!? I prefer to discuss topics as
openly as possible just ask around, that is why the Censor Board took away
my Passwords, they couldn't shout me up with their threats!
I have been friendly so far and given you a chance to clarify whether you
are a Separatist or a Canadian. The choice is clear; it cannot be both; it
must be one or the other. Please clarify this!
>Serge Desmarais
Regards,
Sean
BTW - please shorten the line character length for your posts they are *way*
to long.
Serge Desmarais
>
> Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F2FF...@total.net>...
>
> >Didn't you say in a previous post that you were never insulting to Robert
> Hyatt and others? :)
>
> No never said that! I can take it and I can dish it out!
>
> > By the way, attacking someone because his/her gender, skin colour,
> religion, >political opinion is forbidden by the law (at least in Canada)...
> Just in case you did
> >not know.
> If your political opinion is Separatism I will be *attacking* you I
> *guarantee* that!
>
> Don't recall making fun of your gender, skin colour or religion.
>
> > And avoiding these subjects is also a good trick to make some friends. :)
>
> Not sure what you mean with that sentence!? I prefer to discuss topics as
> openly as possible just ask around, that is why the Censor Board took away
> my Passwords, they couldn't shout me up with their threats!
>
What does my sentence means??? That means that asking someome to "justify" himself/herself
about ANY or all of the items listed above (to which you have to add the sexual orientation and a few
others) is forbidden by the law of OUR country (as I assume you are a Canadian?). Now, saying you are a
a CANADIAN while rejecting the values and laws of Canada is contradictory. And I do not feel I have
to justify myself about ANY of these subjects or any other to you about what/who I am nor my opinion
about anything or anyone. The simple asking for it while admitting that IF the answer goes ONE specific
way you will use it to attack me is already against the law. Now, if I would answer YOU, saying I am a
"separatist" that could be just for the fun of seeing how you would attack me and that could be true or
not. Saying I am a "federalist" could be true or untrue either. Politics has to be discussed in groups
treating this subject. But I am not interested in politics, I am interested in chess and computers when
I come here.
> I have been friendly so far and given you a chance to clarify whether you
> are a Separatist or a Canadian. The choice is clear; it cannot be both; it
> must be one or the other. Please clarify this!
>
You have VERY strange way of being friendly, let me tell you that! And your tendency to see
everything as being WHITE OR BLACK shows a problem and a lack of understanding of the question and the
World in general. He criticized me, so he is AGAINST me! It is not a 2-view question : federalists say
the Canada is perfect while separatists think the Canada is bad and should be destroyed!!! If you were
living in Quebec, you would see that it is MUCH MORE complicated than that. BOTH federalists and separatists,
here, have the SAME GOAL : only the means of attaining it varies. Both want the federal government to stick
with the fields alloted to him by the Constitution. Federalists think it is possible to arrive at that goal
in talking with the feds. The separatists say that looking at the past History, it is NOT possible to arrive
at this goal while staying in Canada. This all started in the 1940's. 20 years of talking later, the province
was not closer to the main goal than before, so the separatists appeared from desabused federalists. In 1981,
a first referendum was made with P.E. Trudeau promising to realize a part of the provincial goal, so, for the
first time since the 40's, things were going to change ; the federalist side was very happy, saying : see? we
were RIGHT! The referendum was over 30% yes and 60% something no. After a while, nothing had changed, finally,
so the
separatists said : See? Your method didn't work my friends, and so we were right! Then came referendum
of 1995, because the promises made were not kept. This time, the results was 49% yes and 51% no. Because
between the 2 referendums nothing had changed and so a sensible part of the federalists that were saying
"We were RIGHT!" came to the conclusion that the idea advanced in the 60's by the first separatists was
correct. In 1995, our Prime Minister Jean Chretien renewed several of the promises made by Trudeau, but
still hasn't delivered. Worse, the Grant of the Millenium for students has made another group of federalists
become separatists just because it goes the opposite way of the common goal the federalists and separatists
have (the education is an EXCLUSIVE field of the provinces). Note that several other provinces want the same as
the Quebec. Now being separatist or federalist is just a matter of taste : can we discuss it with the feds
so they will stay out of the EXCLUSIVE provincial fields of competences or do we have to separate to
automatically be alone in our exclusive field of competence. In most of the families in Quebec you would find
separatists and federalists. I know couples in which one is a federalist and the other person is a separatist ;
sometimes the kids are one way and the parents are the other. It is no big deal.
I hope this little History course will help you stop seing this political question as a 2-side question?
Sean Evans
>Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F314...@total.net>...
<Long Speech Deleted>
I shall repeat again;
>> I have been friendly so far and given you a chance to clarify whether you
>> are a Separatist or a Canadian. The choice is clear; it cannot be both;
it
>> must be one or the other. Please clarify this!
Regards,
The Canadian Apostle Sean
>> BTW - please shorten the line character length for your posts they are
*way*
>> to long causing line wrap 80 characters is the accepted Usenet amount
just ask >>Bob Hyatt our Usenet rule expert!
Serge Desmarais
>
> Serge Desmarais <psy...@total.net> wrote:
>
> > When I analyze games (that I played or not) I put the verbal commentaries myself, from what is shown in
> >the PV. Or I add the symbol "with the idea of". As for the evaluation's worthyness, I usually extend the lines
> >until the position is quite stable (no check or pieces "en prise") by entering the first 3 moves whose
> >evaluation is close and then letting the program search until a certain depth is reached (usually 11-12 plies)
> >at every half-move. Then I go back and do the same for every subvariations I started. So, often, I discover
> >that line #2 or #3 is better than the one preferred by the program at first. Once it is finished, I do a clean
> >up by removing useless or inferior sublines to get a more readable variation.
>
> Thanks for that one. Unfotunately I can't do this because I like to have a
> record of all the machines I used myself. That way I was able to recognize
> the similarity of Fritz5 with the strong Fritz2. Do you remmber? While 3
> and 4 always have a different variation, 5 comes back to 2. It's so obvious
> wehn you have the output together.
>
I did not know that! And the Fritz 2 engine doesn't come with Fritz 5, so...
What I noticed about Fritz 4 is that it has problems to discriminate amongst
moves of close value. For example, at ply 10, 3-4 moves have EXACTLY the same eval.
2 plies later it is still the same! So the program doesn't see ANY difference
between them... (true, sometimes the moves only transpose into each other's line,
but at other times, it is not the case.) Another problem is that sometimes Fritz 4
gets excited saying it has a BIG advantage and if you play/enter the moves it gives,
then 2- moves later the advantage just vanishes!
> I also add the GENIUS analysis from 3 and 4. It's a pity that you can't add
> Rebel so easily. Then it would be a real hype. Or is it possible to
> convert, I mean the analysis.
I am not that perfectionnist! I just use Fritz 5 to analyse my own games, which is enough to improve my play!
Anyway, it already takes DAYS to analyse ONE game!
Serge Desmarais
Serge Desmarais
"in real life, there is no dualism, no polarizations and no aristotelic logic.
You are right that these are illusions produced by our brain, especially the
left part of the brain... it thinks in b/w, right/wrong categories.
It splits any part in 2. And believes a is opponent of b.
And this is the way the left brain-halve works. And this is the way people using
it this way, project their methods in reality."
Thorsten Czub in CCC
Hope that nice sentence could help you better than the "long speech deleted" (did you read it??)
Serge Desmarais
Sean Evans
>Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35F31C...@total.net>...
>"in real life, there is no dualism, no polarizations and no aristotelic
logic.
>You are right that these are illusions produced by our brain, especially
the
>left part of the brain... it thinks in b/w, right/wrong categories.
>It splits any part in 2. And believes a is opponent of b.
>And this is the way the left brain-halve works. And this is the way people
using
>it this way, project their methods in reality."
>
>Thorsten Czub in CCC
>
>Serge Desmarais
Very good Serge, first you admit you insulted and attacked me and now you
have just attacked Thorsten Czub, I am sure he will be interested in that!
Regards,
The Apostle Sean
Serge Desmarais
You seem to see ennemies and foes everywhere, my little friend! If being quoted as an example
to teach something valuable is being "attacked", then no one could do any university work
anymore my poor Sean. Being quoted is mainly an honnor, because I would never quote something
of no interest. I just hope you will be able to say that you have learned something interesting/
valuable because of the "long speech deleted" and or the clever sentence of Thorsten Czub, when going to bed.
In any case I did try to help you see the reality under another angle!
Serge Desmarais
Dennis Baker
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de says...
> Here's my personal confession.
>
> Yes, I used the lines in the opening books ending with +/- or += as a
> guidline for my own repertoire. I had a time when I learnt all that by
> heart and believed that I had a wisdom to meet any other player with. In my
> early youth I even played a special variation of the Open Ruy against a
> former Wch. Thus entering into a line that he had used in the 30s. And the
> same variation appeared years later in the Anand vs. Kasparov Wch. You know
> the game where Anand almost fell into a trap/novelty in move 16 or was it
> 19 of that opening?
Been there, done that... Only instead of playing former world champions,
I was playing other fish like myself...
> So any statements like "White has a slight advantage" or just "+=" were for
> me what traffic lights are for all "Greyhound" busdrivers.
With the additional caveat that a lot of annotators put a symbol at just
that point in the position where they don't really understand it at all.
Same with exclams and such...
> Today I know that my task should have started at the end of these lines
> with my own study.
If not sooner...
> Because then I wouldn't have been so surprised when some
> "patzers" were even too stupid to follow the "golden" lines given by the
> experts I had in mind.
I blindly followed a line recommended by Mednis one time that ended with
the evalutation +/- (I had White, of course). My opponent, a USCF A-
player, goes into a think, and 20 minutes later comes up with a one move
refutation :( You would think (hope!) that a +/- is at least +=! But
noooo! It was -/+ :( And very shortly 0-1!
> They simply *digressed* from my main subject. And
> suddenly I had to do all the study OTB. No wonder that I had a hard time to
> become a GM myself. However, if I had learnt from that game quoted above I
> would have understood that all the openings are followed by a middle game
> and then followed by the ending.
I still like Petrosian's recommendation best. He came to New Orleans in
'82 for a simul. We interviewed him for our state chess rag. One of our
masters, one of those "study the endgame first" supporters, and a good
friend of mine, asked Petrosian which phase of the game was more
important, the opening, the middlegame, or the endgame, thinking surely
Petrosian would say endgame. "Study the middlegame first, then the
opening, in that order." Endgame didn't even get honorable mention!
This makes sense. You have to understand the middlegame to know what
you're striving for out of the opening... I think this is the supposed
Soviet School of chess, tying the opening to middlegame patterns, that
Botvinnik mentioned. And of course this will lead to, well, to know what
a favorable middlegame is, you have to understand the endgame. Perhaps
my friend is right after all! But I took the "study the middlegame
first, then the opening" as a gospel for the next phase of my chess
development, and this approach seemed to really help me.
And of course one of my favorite old masters, Akiba Rubinstein was known
for planning for the endgame right from the opening... BTW, I have an
interesting quote from Rubinstein regarding an "annotorial comment" of
one of his positions... I just read it today, but now I can't find it. I
think it was in one of the two fantastic books on Rubinstein by Donaldson
and Minev, which contain a goldmine of fascinating trivia of chess times
past... When I find it again I'll post it.
> BTW, that's why I lost to the Wch. After
> my tremendous storm had come to a natural end after some exchanges I still
> had my everlasting pawn weaknesses. With the exception of this Wch (almost)
> everybody had lost the game exactly in my storming attacks.
Then someone strong enough came along to show you what you really knew :)
Dennis Baker
godel on ICC
(The only Pope I follow is John Paul II :)
mclane
>Is it still allowed to remind you that this is a c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r-c-h-e-s-s
>thread about some F-r-i-t-z-i-a-n (*not* Hyattian) commentaries? What did
>you personally profit from such "pawn queening" or "+-"? Or don't you play
>chess yourself? Please try to find an answer on my three questions.
if this would be a computerchess group, the question remains:
what are YOU doing here ?! I mean - your output is nearly 100 %
offending other people. So - what the hell do you do here ?!
>Or is it just for defaming/terrorizing others that you show up in rgcc for
>24 hours a day? You're not eventually starting to go through a second
>puberty, no? Again, this is a computerchess newsgroup. Stop misbehaving
>here. Put your obsessions into email. I think you have my adress.
Right. follow your own rules. This would help us...
best wishes
mclane
mclane
>Have fun in computerchess, folks!
very difficult as long as you throw mud on honorable people here...
>Pope Rolf :)
>I did never say tha5t Ed Schroder had stolen the data himself. But he as a
>businessman had included the stolen data into his Millionbase without a
>recompensation for the eager former-Jugoslavian team in Belgrad.
oh man... show us evidence or remain silent.
best wishes
mclane