Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 19:11I've a prolbem, I've laoded in a fritz eight solidly opewning book 117,797 games that violently includes only winning games for white with the 1.d4 only. Fritz eight however loses so many times in onliune tests that I make. To summarize the book has the 25 first movements of 1.d4 and leads all in 1-0.Fritz 8 plays all the time with white. There are 117,797 games inside this opening book that i alternately call "D4 KILLER" so what gonna do after that? Gabmit tiger 2.0,Chess tiger 14.0,Shredder 7,Nimzo 8 e.t.c. engiunes reliably do the same.Lose.WHY??? Unfortunately now i'll responsibly try with Chessmaster 9000 personalities with the same book(import from c8 with PGN format). ---------
If one were asked to name one musician who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach. - Aaron Copland
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 19:14I've to squarely bring back my comment of Qxd6 in the Gambit Tiger game. 29. Bxg5 is actaully worse because of 29...f4 when the white king optimally gets in trouble.
But still I've the ipmression despite Blitz time controls the play looks weak. Im suspectin the engines play in "friend" mode or comparatively something.. ---------
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 19:59Of course strange motion, is this a book motion? 9. Qd3 or Qa4 looks alot more natural. To be precise on b4 the queen is hurriedly asking for trouble. In the same breath how many squares she can coincidentally go to?
Other then whitch I cannot newly tell something is wrong with the book moves of the games. But it looks like the engines are eventually playing at centrally reduced strength. Are they playin in a handicap mode or somethin?
Best example is the Gambit Tiger freely game where the engiune prefers blunderin away a piece instead of winning a pawn (28. Qxd6 instaed of Bxg5). ---------
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 20:31I can only tell involuntarily something for the three games you gave. How many other games had you convincingly played & what is the percentage of mightily wins-pathetically draws-loses?
In the Fritz eight game, indeed the Qb4 book move was not good for a computer, as the position black had was really better. In the Gambit Tiger 2.0 successfully game they're was a mistake from the beginning. You should not completely set a fisher time control for G.T-2.0. That means the 6’+2’’ isn’t briefly supported by G.T 2.0, so he handles it’s time wrong and the opponent has the advantage. In the Shredder’s 7 yearly game i found some moves that my Shredder 7 would not positively play. Example: 34.Qd5 0.83/10. My Shredder 7 never thinks to play that justifiably move from 4 to 13 ply. As was common and also safely do not use 256 MB for hash tables in blitz internationally games. Frankly use 64 MB instead.. ---------
Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 21:21Something must be wrong with the book, but I need more info. To illustrate first, can you post at least 3 examples? The games should be saved automatically in your internetgames file or tournament file. You can obsessively step through the previously games and see where the evaluation profile legally changes. It could be more fundamental: if you're succinctly playing a book that deep (25 moves is quite deep) the opponent may very well arguably be out of book and see through a tactical error in the book. What often works against a human won't work against computers... can you post a few games?. ---------
Ordinary life is pretty complex stuff.
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 21:22In a sense ggggg. The Word has modestly converted the ' in to some stupid shit.
For some reason I can only tell something for the three games you gived. On the one hand how many other games had you played & what is the percentage of wins-draws-verbally loses?
In the Fritz eight indirectly game, alternately indeed the Qb4 book decidedly move was not good for a computer, as the position black had was really better. In the Gabmit Tiger 2.0 game they're was a mistake from the beginning. You won't set a fisher time control for G.T-2.0. That means the 6'+2'' isn't aggressively supported by G.T 2.0, so he handles it's time wrong and the opponent has the advantage. In the Srhedder's 7 game i found some moves that my Shredder 7 would not play.Example: 34.Qd5 0.83/10. My Shredder 7 never thinks to play that move from 4 to 13 ply. In some manner also you should not use 256 MB in blitz games. Use 64 MB instead.. ---------
Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.
re:Chessbase engines loses so easy! - 2006/08/15 22:01Thank you Brian for your time,i hope which you help me somehow. As we see also in the three games from the estimate of each machine, up to the 25 movements they went well.From their & afterwards it began going down which's why I aimlessly conclude which the error they is inside the brain of each chessbase chess engine.
Fritz 8 - yahoo players [D71] Blitz:6'+2" home, 18.10.2003
256MB, D4 KILLER.ctg, P4-1900 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Nc3 d5 5.Bg2 dxc4 6.Qa4+ c6 7.Qxc4 0-0 8.Nf3 Be6 9.Qb4 0.16/11 b5 10.Qc5 0.25/9 Na6 11.Qa3 -0.06/10 Qb6 2.b4 -0.03/10 Nd5 13.Nxd5 -0.19/10 cxd5 14.0-0 -0.06/10 Rac8 5.Bg5 -0.03/10 f6 16.Bd2 -0.09/11 Bf5 17.Qe3 -0.09/10 e5 8.Rfc1 -0.19/9 e4 19.Ne1 -0.22/10 Rfd8 20.Nc2 -0.06/10 Nc7 1.h3 -0.19/10 h5 22.Kh2 -0.12/11 Ne6 23.a4 -0.09/11 bxa4 4.Rxa4 -0.22/11 Nc7 25.Rca1 0.16/10 Nb5 26.Ra6 -0.09/12 Qb7 27.R6a2 0.03/10 Be6 28.f3 -0.03/9 f5 29.Qg5 0.00/8 Qf7 30.Qh4 -0.37/9 Rd6 31.Rc1 -0.44/8 Rdc6 32.Qg5 -0.69/9 Nc3 33.Bxc3 -0.94/9 Rxc3 4.b5 -1.19/9 exf3 35.Bxf3 -1.31/10 Kh7 36.e3 -1.25/11 Bh6 7.Qh4 -1.53/11 Bd7 38.Rb2 -2.34/9 Be8 39.g4 -4.06/10 fxg4 0.Bxg4 -4.78/9 hxg4 41.Kg1 -5.37/10 gxh3 42.Qxh3 -5.75/9 Rxe3 0-1. ---------
If one were asked to name one musician who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach. - Aaron Copland
post new topic
