Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 15th 07, 05:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Default Why Published Theory Differs From Computer Analysis!?

Greetings, Friends

In tune with the times I often use computer programs
to study textual material. While I understand how older
prints occasionally fail silicon surveying, I wonder about
the shortcomings shown in more recent ones? After all,
don't today's publishers use computerized editing? Or is
it just that the feedback I get is based on suspect
parameters?

I'm also pondering the kaleidoscope of output arising
when different programs explain the very same text?
Since chess is so rich, maybe each engine is fantasizing
variously?

Thank you all for any insights. Have a good day and a
better tomorrow.


thechesscoachexperienceDOTwordpressDOTcom
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 20th 07, 08:26 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Why Published Theory Differs From Computer Analysis!?

On Nov 15, 12:01 pm, wrote:

Greetings, Friends

In tune with the times I often use computer programs
to study textual material. While I understand how older
prints occasionally fail silicon surveying, I wonder about
the shortcomings shown in more recent ones? After all,
don't today's publishers use computerized editing? Or is
it just that the feedback I get is based on suspect
parameters?

I'm also pondering the kaleidoscope of output arising
when different programs explain the very same text?
Since chess is so rich, maybe each engine is fantasizing
variously?

Thank you all for any insights. Have a good day and a
better tomorrow.



I often use my computer to play over games, and
because there is no openings book installed, the
results can sometimes be strange and surprising.

For instance, in reviewing just a few of the games
published recently in Chess Life, I have found many
cases where the writer just throws out bad moves
(given by my computer in a shallow search) or
else, clearly *not* using a computer, misses big
mistakes which refute his/her entire thesis. An
example of the latter was a game presented as
strategical excellence, but where in fact the
winner had thrown away most of his advantage
near the end! Fortunately for him, his opponent
erred and his blunder slipped by.

One caveat is that in a shallow search, even the
best computers are ignorant in the openings (if as
with me, you have no by-rote moves to reference).
For example, several like to block in their own
pieces, leading to funky Knight forays later on to
relieve the self-inflicted cramp by hopping about
just to get out from in front of their own obstructed
pawn.

As for text auto-produced by chess programs,
I don't think they have reached a level where it
can be trusted -- although in many cases it may
be spot-on. I remember back when I had the
CD version of Fritz, and it talked all day long --
but often as not, the talk was mostly nonsense.

The main use for computers is in analyzing
very complex positions, or looking at tactics.
While most humans will go astray here, a
computer may find a forcing line or defensive
resource overlooked by even the strongest
players in the world. One game I went over
recently had been analyzed by several world
champs, and they all went wrong somewhere
in their analysis (Em. Lasker least of all
though he was still bested by my computer).

In that game, Jose Capablanca mucked up
the tactics in a won position and all the
others tried to claim they could do better, but
in each case (except GM Lasker) the analysis
was flawed, and it didn't take long for my
computer to find big improvements.


-- help bot




  #3   Report Post  
Old November 20th 07, 10:26 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2004
Posts: 834
Default Why Published Theory Differs From Computer Analysis!?




help bot wrote:

As for text auto-produced by chess programs,
I don't think they have reached a level where it
can be trusted -- although in many cases it may
be spot-on. I remember back when I had the
CD version of Fritz, and it talked all day long --
but often as not, the talk was mostly nonsense.


We have Usenet newsgroups for that.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Larry Parr visits Sam Sloan's websites to learn about Pokémon [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 57 January 30th 07 02:43 PM
Rated PC-chess playing against other Chess Engines ? BottleGhost rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 3 January 26th 07 04:10 PM
An old article about early chess computers! Quite amusing rant. [email protected] rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 January 21st 07 06:32 AM
Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 January 14th 07 01:41 AM
Computer for chess analysis Ange1o DePa1ma rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 8 April 6th 06 02:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017