Why do chess computers often misevaluate the french defense?
Sort:
Nov 1, 2017
0
#43
pfren wrote:
There are still many things that computers evaluate wrongly.
Here is a recent engines-on game I have won as white in a Steinitz French. Around move 18 engines evaluate the position as almost equal, while a chess master does know white has the advantage, and has to form an effective plan to utilize it. In the former game white mechanically played all engine recommendations and only drew. I think I did a tad better- white's winning plan is rather complicated, but really cute: The idea of planting the knight at f6 after appropriate manouvering is too much for black (with, or without an engine) to handle...
Nice game! That R+P endgame was quite instructive.
Nov 2, 2017
0
#44
another flame war.....personally I like the french best but there can be other better openings. it all has so to suit to your playing style
Nov 2, 2017
0
#45
Chesscomsyndrome wrote:
Ummhh..Well huh.. Naka beat a comp in a damm closed position and humilated it by underpromoting 6 Knights something.The french leads to such positions
The "humiliation" happened after Rybka remained only with the King. By then it should have resigned, blame the author.
Nov 2, 2017
0
#46
pfren wrote:
There are still many things that computers evaluate wrongly.
Here is a recent engines-on game I have won as white in a Steinitz French. Around move 18 engines evaluate the position as almost equal, while a chess master does know white has the advantage, and has to form an effective plan to utilize it. In the former game white mechanically played all engine recommendations and only drew. I think I did a tad better- white's winning plan is rather complicated, but really cute: The idea of planting the knight at f6 after appropriate manouvering is too much for black (with, or without an engine) to handle...
Can you give a won game you against the engine from move 18?
Nov 2, 2017
0
#47
mcris wrote:
Chesscomsyndrome wrote:
Ummhh..Well huh.. Naka beat a comp in a damm closed position and humilated it by underpromoting 6 Knights something.The french leads to such positions
The "humiliation" happened after Rybka remained only with the King. By then it should have resigned, blame the author.
Does "knights or something" mean bishops or was that a different game?
mcris wrote:
pfren wrote:
There are still many things that computers evaluate wrongly.
Here is a recent engines-on game I have won as white in a Steinitz French. Around move 18 engines evaluate the position as almost equal, while a chess master does know white has the advantage, and has to form an effective plan to utilize it. In the former game white mechanically played all engine recommendations and only drew. I think I did a tad better- white's winning plan is rather complicated, but really cute: The idea of planting the knight at f6 after appropriate manouvering is too much for black (with, or without an engine) to handle...
Can you give a won game you against the engine from move 18?
That's what he did. Pfren + engine vs opponent + engine. Correspondence chess on some servers allow that.
logozar wrote:
Here is what super-GM Boris Gelfand says in his excellent book, Dynamic Decision Making In Chess:
"I suggest that those who start out young should study chess without computer assistance for years, in order to understand the game before you use this powerful tool. As Kasparov said: the main thing to understand about engines is when to turn it on and when to turn it off."
I completely agree, depending a engine assistance only hinder ones growth, and its guarantee to being low rated all your live; I see it too often in my chess club.
Nov 3, 2017
0
#52
Because computers do not actually "think". They just compare huge amounts of possible continuations. In this way they miss the real subtleties of chess.
Nov 3, 2017
0
#53
Just give me a game you won again Stockhfish, Houdini or Komodo and I'll believe you.
mcris wrote:
Just give me a game you won again Stockfish, Houdini or Komodo and I'll believe you.
Analysis with Stockfish:
Nov 3, 2017
0
#55
The (first) problem with this game are in the first 11 moves, theory you say. I am not interested in human theory, but in Stockfish play, so give me a game where Stockfish plays all moves.
The second problem is that Stockfish says it wins with 22...Nf3! LOL
My bad. I was inputting it from memory, I put the wrong knight on e2 in the diagram. The correct move is 22.Nce2, and there White has a decisive advantage. I edited my post.
Nov 3, 2017
0
#57
mcris wrote:
The (first) problem with this game are in the first 11 moves, theory you say. I am not interested in human theory, but in Stockfish play, so give me a game where Stockfish plays all moves.
The second problem is that Stockfish says it wins with 22...Nf3! LOL
Stockfish is playing from human theory. It's opening play has been largely determined by generations of grandmasters past.
When I first got a computer program that played chess (on a BBC acorn) it hammered me every time until I came up with a non-standard opening with which I could beat it. It wasn't the program that was beating me It was it's book - a product of human understanding.
MARattigan wrote:
mcris wrote:
The (first) problem with this game are in the first 11 moves, theory you say. I am not interested in human theory, but in Stockfish play, so give me a game where Stockfish plays all moves.
The second problem is that Stockfish says it wins with 22...Nf3! LOL
Stockfish is playing from human theory. It's opening play has been largely determined by generations of grandmasters past.
Sometimes, but not always true. If you take away the engine's access to theory, it's evaluations (and suggestions) in the opening can be absurd (I can name many examples, but this is probably true for much of theory is basically every opening). Show it the theory, and it can change its mind (agree with the human players), but not remember the line long enough to show the correct evaluation/sequence of moves if you go back to the position of the original suggestion.
I don't want to argue about this anymore, as I'd rather study. I'm going to unfollow this thread after I post this comment.
Nov 4, 2017
0
#60
MARattigan wrote:
mcris wrote:
The (first) problem with this game are in the first 11 moves, theory you say. I am not interested in human theory, but in Stockfish play, so give me a game where Stockfish plays all moves.
The second problem is that Stockfish says it wins with 22...Nf3! LOL
Stockfish is playing from human theory. It's opening play has been largely determined by generations of grandmasters past.
When I first got a computer program that played chess (on a BBC acorn) it hammered me every time until I came up with a non-standard opening with which I could beat it. It wasn't the program that was beating me It was it's book - a product of human understanding.
Stockfish plays very well without opening book, especially in the French defense.
Did you read the rest of the forum? I posted several quotes that imply that it isn't always good to trust engines. I hardly use them nowadays. And I think you shouldn't post insulting things about others "thinking for yourself for once" unless you are sure you are right. I asked the question something like a year ago, and I didn't imply that I always trusted engines.
You should give up chess. You don't have the determination to put in the work yourself. Your original post was stupid. As a principled chess player I feel I should advise you to give up chess as you are not suited for it. You are lazy. You don't seek the truth in any position yourself. Instead you trust in a computer to show you the way. Just lazy. Typical of your generation really. Always wanting instant gratification.
Your accusations to Logozar are unfair. Perhaps you see all this personal for your own reasons but is far from truth what you say for him. Only to realize that all the modern development in opening theory has been at some point guided from engine approval. Kasparov himself stayed world Champion more than a decade because of his employs looking all day-night opening Novelties with engine assistant.
Although engines cannot understand closed opening positions they can verify the strength of the potential even when the line is quite inferior....but again all this have nothing to do with your accusations against Logozar which is a personal problem of yours and not the truth.