Tactics server

Originally posted by heinzkat
What I meant to say, your views tend to be too dependant on whatever engines happen to poop out 😉

Let me check that with my Fritz... Fritz!! Oh yes indeed my Fritz thinks the same about it.

I agree it's dangerous to rely too heavily on engines, but given I was making the point in the very post you quoted than engines miss stuff, I still think your reply is uncharitable. Having said that, the positions on the site are all by definition tactical, and this is usually an area of strength for the engines, so relying on engine analysis is usually a sensible thing to do (it tends to be a LOT more accurate than even high rated players). Yes there will be some situations where some humanity in the analysis would be useful, especially in endgame positions, I'd already acknowledged this before you posted your example position "Sometimes you can find a move that might have deserved a 'try again', especially in early endgame positions where the engine can't see far enough ahead to notice that the move would be winning" is what I said in an earlier post.

I'm still interested to hear why you'd play 1.Kf1 in the position you posted over the other two possibilities, as I still don't understand why you see that as the sensible move in that position (but given you are obviously a considerably stronger player than I am, I assume you have your reasons..).

Regards,
Richard.

Another try: it appears everything you say about a position is reviewed by an engine, and then you comment on what the engine thinks (i.e. Toga rates this only 2.5 but if you look deeper it will go to +3.5). Here is a random example, Mr. Marvellous gives a pretty neato position, and the rest of the thread consists of whether his hash tables were turned on or not, that Rybka takes over 10 minutes and so on 🙄

http://chesstempo.com/chess-forum/chess_tactics_discussion/problem_to_solve_warning_difficult-t1555.0.html

Not for my taste 😕 As said in another thread, I do not understand ChessTempo and ChessTempo does not understand me. 😀

Originally posted by heinzkat
Another try: it appears everything you say about a position is reviewed by an engine, and then you comment on what the engine thinks (i.e. Toga rates this only 2.5 but if you look deeper it will go to +3.5). Here is a random example, Mr. Marvellous gives a pretty neato position, and the rest of the thread consists of whether his hash tables were turned on o ...[text shortened]... said in another thread, I do not understand ChessTempo and ChessTempo does not understand me. 😀

you're a waste of time.

Originally posted by philidor position
you're a waste of time.

I have never claimed otherwise. By the way because it happens not to coincide with how you feel about an issue does not automatically make any other thought on it completely wrong. Moreover, this is called feedback, which means I have not given up totally on the project. You wouldn't see me providing feedback on something like the Adaptive Chess Tactics site 😕

Marvellosity posted the position and mentioned Rybka hadn't found the mate, discussions ensued about both the position and the reasons for Rybka's possible failure, given Rybka's strength some people find it interesting when it fails to find a mate (especially one found by other engines), obviously you are not one of those people :-)

The fact is that in tactical positions, if you are not getting the opinion of the engine then you are risking making a fool of yourself. There are lots of examples on the site when people rated 2000+ FIDE (2300+ in some exmaples) post comments like, "What? I played 1.xx and it was marked wrong, I want my points back", and their next comment a few minutes later is, "ok, I checked with Rybka, 1.xx actually loses to 1...aa, 2.bb cc etc". Engines are not the be-all-and-end-all of chess, but they do have their uses, especially in tactical situations.

You don't like chess problems where the main line comes from an engine, (which btw often matches the main line of game the tactic came from). I can understand that, obviously you're not going to find the site that fun/interesting/useful, such is life :-)

Anyways, I'm still interested to know why you prefer 1.Kf1 in that position.

Regards,
Richard.

I would avoid 1. fxe3/dxe3 for the same reason I would not play 1. ... Qb7/Qb8 in that other position - two moves that reach the same thing -- that was what the example was about. I skip those moves continuing to look for a move that achieves something "unique". Note: of course only in a "puzzle environment" such as yours, but my mind should not be reasoning like that on CT, by now I know, yet it is difficult to avoid.

Originally posted by heinzkat
I have never claimed otherwise. By the way because it happens not to coincide with how you feel about an issue does not automatically make any other thought on it completely wrong. Moreover, this is called feedback, which means I have not given up totally on the project. You wouldn't see me providing feedback on something like the Adaptive Chess Tactics site 😕

no. I'll be frank. the whole fuss you're making is based only on the opinion that a chess problem should have only one clearly winning answer in every single move of the variation. This you won't get on CT. That should be understood by now.

other than that, your views about engine dependence or that you find the problems "irrational" etc are just bits of trolling.

Thanks heinzkat,

I understand your point much better I think. I think the key point is that the CT 'problems' are not designed as traditional 'chess puzzles', they are training positions , so have different rules. Sometimes on CT it does help to assume that if you've found two moves exactly the same that you've missed something (because CT will not allow problems where the eval is too close or the mate length the same), the problem with the 1. ... Qb7/Qb8 situation is that one move was a couple of pawns higher in eval (and yes, as I've already mentioned I realise this isn't really a practical difference in how the game would have ended). However because of the 'try again' rules on the site, as long as you were sure both moves DID win significant material, you should have felt confident playing either move , safe in the knowledge that if your analysis was correct that you would not fail the problem.

Something I could look at doing would be to require a larger gap between the best and second best move for tactics that win larger amounts of material (which would then reject this problem), as I think this would address some of the concerns you have. The issue is I have to balance yield of hard problems against such concerns, so I'll need to decide if the trade-off would be worth it here.

Regards,
Richard.

Originally posted by heinzkat
I would avoid 1. fxe3/dxe3 for the same reason I would not play 1. ... Qb7/Qb8 in that other position - two moves that reach the same thing -- that was what the example was about. I skip those moves continuing to look for a move that achieves something "unique". Note: of course only in a "puzzle environment" such as yours, but my mind should not be reasoning like that on CT, by now I know, yet it is difficult to avoid.

To be quite frank, this merely indicates to me your lack of practical playing strength and nous with regards to solving set positions.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the difference between Qb7 and Qb8, despite them being actually quite evident on some inspection, suggests to me you are unable to calculate the differences. Your inability to grasp the difference between dxe3 and fxe3 in what is an unsymmetrical position also shows naivety.

As has already been said, positions for solving tactics are not composed problems where there is only one solution. In the 'real world' of chess, there are often a couple of ways to win.

The great strength of chesstempo is that IT NEVER FAILS YOU FOR PLAYING A WINNING MOVE. This seems to me to be pretty much a requisite of solving a position, yet at the same time is unique to chesstempo.

I speak as someone with a faily good knowledge of problem solving, being a decent standard player, having used CT extensively, having used CTS (and abandoned it), as well as being a moderator on chess.com's tactics trainer.

Also to be frank, Wormwood strikes me as being a troll. I've just read this thread in its entirety (as opposed to most people who presumably followed it as it developed) and found him repellant. As far as I can see, he posed numerous postulates over and over again without even suggesting he might be able to provide proof or that he'd even want to, rather pointlessly parroting the same unsubstantiated bile.

I also think it's worth pointing out that CT's set is generally now extremely good. There is a specific forum for raising possible issues with problems, and it is extremely dormant indeed. All the recent posts in that forum have been questions, and I can't speak for Richard here but I imagine (these days) that his rate of disabling problems flagged by users is extraordinarily low.

Originally posted by philidor position
no. I'll be frank. the whole fuss you're making is based only on the opinion that a chess problem should have only one clearly winning answer in every single move of the variation.

well it just so happens to be pretty much the definition of a tactic, and especially a puzzle. 😕

Originally posted by marvellosity
suggests to me you are unable to calculate the differences.

I have never claimed a lack of inability 🙂

Originally posted by marvellosity
having used CTS (and abandoned it)

http://chess.emrald.net/tProfile.php?TacID=33454

I can understand why you abandoned it - you didn't understand what was going on. Same for me with CT's site. 🙁

Originally posted by marvellosity
blahblabhblah..

The great strength of chesstempo is that IT NEVER FAILS YOU FOR PLAYING A WINNING MOVE.

..blahblah.

that would mean all problems ended up into a mate. they don't.

this whole conversation illuminates perfectly why relying on engines is such a damaging idea for improving players. you engine guys don't even understand what we're saying, but instead run back to 'rybka evaluates this +5.27' every single time, thinking that represents some kind of 'truth' in the position.

well I've got hard news for you. +5.27 ONLY means rybka is saying: "I DON'T SEE A WIN". when it finally sees the win, it'll announce checkmate. before that it'll just spit out a number. the TRUTH is it doesn't know if there's a win or draw or even a lost position.

a human can often say something like "I'm a rook up, and there's no counterplay, hence it's a win even though I can't calculate any lines until the end[/i]". and he'll be correct.

engine can't. it can't make general strategic observations like that, it doesn't know anything about the position beyond it's calculated lines, it can't understand the nature or potential of the position. from rybka's "+5.27" it's ABSOLUTELY impossible to know whether you're a clear rook up, or whether you're getting mated after a sac. just because rybka spit's out a number with decimals doesn't mean it's in any way correct. but you guys don't ever seem to get why this is so important distinction.

throw an engine a totally random position, and it'll gladly calculate it until the cows come home. a human would take one glance and say: "what's the point? that's not a chess position." what would be the point of polluting your chessmind with nonsensical patterns? how would 'learning' that 'solution'

what's "+5.27" ever gonna teach you? where is the beauty? what kind of deep insights did "+5.27" give you about chess? how did it increase your understanding of chess?

but take a Good Problem, one about which a human can say "now, here's the idea... and this is why this doesn't work... this looks promising, you get up material, BUT you lose the ending so it's a no go..." etc, and you're actually learning something.

we need more Good Problems, and less random crap that rybka happens to evaluate +5.27. (and that goes for CTS just as well)

Originally posted by wormwood
troll troll troll

Hey, don't be so harsh on Marvellosity, he's the man

Originally posted by heinzkat
http://chess.emrald.net/tProfile.php?TacID=33454

I can understand why you abandoned it - you didn't understand what was going on. Same for me with CT's site. 🙁

35 tries. well whoop-de-doo.