Originally posted by greenpawn34I was referring to the commentator that wrote about the game, which I copied the pgn from. That comment was written before I ran it thru Houdini 3 which does not really do any commenting. It just gives eval scores and the best move. The orignal commentor did not give any additional moves and Houdini only gives additional moves when it finds a blunder when you are running the Blunder Check. Houdini 3 apparently did not consider the actual move made a blunder, however it gave Nxg2 as the best move because of the difference in the evaluation score.
"...the commentator on the game wrote that the Nxg2 move was better.."
RJ the commentator was a machine. (you posted Houdini gave Nxg2 as better)
Already you have it with a personality by calling IT the commentator,
it's taking over your life. You will be talking to it next.
Switch it off now.
No...wait....show me what line it has after Nxg2.
...[text shortened]... place.
If the White Queen can be zooged out of position one of these trick shots may be on.
I did not try to evaluate the game myself. All I did was present a couple of the original comments about the game in addition to what I learned about it from Houdini 3 by running the game thru the Blunder Check feature. I am just learning how to use this program and do not understand everything about it yet. Now do you understand?
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
"I did not try to evaluate the game myself. All I did was present a couple of the original comments about the game in addition to what I learned about it from Houdini 3 by running the game thru the Blunder Check feature. I am just learning how to use this program and do not understand everything about it yet. Now do you understand?"
Does the program explain why it considers some positions better than others? If it doesn't how can one learn from a program? All ne can assertain is that the program considers one side better than the other in a static position. It is up to the human to determine why. Therefore, on learns far more by going over a game with a strong player.
Originally posted by kbear1kQUESTION: Does the program explain why it considers some positions better than others?
"I did not try to evaluate the game myself. All I did was present a couple of the original comments about the game in addition to what I learned about it from Houdini 3 by running the game thru the Blunder Check feature. I am just learning how to use this program and do not understand everything about it yet. Now do you understand?"
Does the program expla ...[text shortened]... an to determine why. Therefore, on learns far more by going over a game with a strong player.
ANSWER: No, not as far as I can tell from what I have learned about it. I don't know of any strong player that lives nearby that I can go over any games with.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is one site you can learn from:
QUESTION: Does the program explain why it considers some positions better than others?
ANSWER: No, not as far as I can tell from what I have learned about it. I don't know of any strong player that lives nearby that I can go over any games with.
http://www.chess.com/
And another, Will Stewart, USCF 2341:
http://www.youtube.com/user/OnlineChessLessons
10 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34I can tell you what's Stockfish's main line. Not that I understand it, but perhaps someone here can explain it.
No...wait....show me what line it has after Nxg2.
It may have stumbled on a remarkable Zuggers.
My cheapo lines nearly work because White has everything in the right place.
If the White Queen can be zooged out of position one of these trick shots may be on.
Now for Qd3.