jdart wrote:Due to the nature of the game changes in eval at the leaves of the search tree can change the eval much farther up. And that is why "theory" is always changing.
For example, I have recently been looking at this game:
Here I think 18. .. h6 is a novelty and it looks like a good one, but after 20. h3! Black is busted. However, actually Black does not appear to have any really adequate moves at move 18 (.. Bb4+ for example gives him a difficult position too), so in fact he should probably deviate earlier. It appears recent games favor 15. .. Qd8, as in Caruana-Robson, US chmp 2016. However, this whole line is very complex. I am quite sure you can't search forward far earlier in the game and get an accurate eval for it.
--Jon
These are the places in that rough area where wrong move choices may have been made by black. By the last one, it may already be too late:
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
rainhaus wrote:
There was no analysis at all. It was an artfully staged April Fool's joke by ChessBase with the friendly support of Vasik Rajlich and many readers were duped by this hoax.
ahah! looool.. they got me, allright
but the question still holds: we need an analysis on the KGA
rainhaus wrote:
There was no analysis at all. It was an artfully staged April Fool's joke by ChessBase with the friendly support of Vasik Rajlich and many readers were duped by this hoax.
ahah! looool.. they got me, allright
but the question still holds: we need an analysis on the KGA
Why are there so many April Fool's jokes on this website while it is November ? Do we need to become even more critical ? No valid proof no acceptance.
Henk van den Belt wrote:
Why are there so many April Fool's jokes on this website while it is November ?
One single april joke, cited in November, is just about tolerable, IMHO. Should it grow into habit, sanctions are needed, fully clear. In such a case I would suggest some kind of virtual water guns.. Furthermore, I would like to bring it to the attention of the well-disposed reader that my apologies had already been made. I may quote:
"Sorry for exhuming this old joke, but in view of your question and the megalomaniac context of this thread I couldn't resist."
I'm thinking now on an additional post to get even more clearly the context of an April Fool's joke with the outlined disaster of the current opening theory.
Henk van den Belt wrote:
Do we need to become even more critical ? No valid proof no acceptance.
Well roared, that cannot be emphasised enough, even someone is speaking in the plural about himself.
I have a pearl of wisdom too: Who reads carefully saves much time to himself and to others.
[quote="drj4759"]
The middle game is where the action and excitement is because it is not yet fully understood by engine developers.
[/quote]
I think developers of engines have to understood the programming well and the experiments of making engines earlier. To be a strong GM and to be a good programmer this is too much for one people.
[quote="drj4759"]
Cerebellum energized some opening book makers to make good opening books. Maybe with their synergy and absorbing the best opening lines from each book, a near perfect opening book will soon appear in the future. When this will come to pass, the next stage will be extending the opening lines into the middle game and even the endgame.
[/quote]
What do you think how many Gigabytes would be that "near perfect opening book"? An endgame database for only 6 men is some tens Gigabytes.
[quote="drj4759"]
..... No more need for endgame databases.
[/quote]
There are lot of middle game positions what can be decided in the phase of endgame only.
[quote="drj4759"]
Chess is solved...
[/quote]
You are very optimistic, are not you?
I should be very sad at that time.
