Talk:Fritz (chess)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Frans Morsch merged here
Its AFD debate agreed to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] strange moves in the game shown in the image
ModelCitizen: could you please post the full set of moves for that Fruit-Fritz game that you posted an image of? (The game seems quite strange) Hayne
Model Citizen responded to my above request on my talk page, supplying the missing moves. Here's a PGN of the whole game, with some notes I added while analyzing it with Hiarcs 10 - it seems strange that Fritz would go out of book so early (with an arguable bad move) and also make so many small and large mistakes latter on. [Event "ModelCitizen game from Fritz Wikipedia page"] [Site "?"] [Date "2006.01.05"] [Round "?"] [White "Fruit2.2"] [Black "Fritz8"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Hiarcs 10"] 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bf5 {Fritz goes out of book - mainline is} (5... a6 {Hiarcs evals the game position as +1.1 for White}) 6. O-O a6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Nh4 Qd7 9. Re1 Bg4 10. Qd3 dxe5 11. h3 Be6 12. dxe5 Nb4 13. Qe4 Rb8 14. Nc3 c5 15. Rd1 Qc6 16. Qe2 Nd5 {Hiarcs says this was a mistake. It suggested instead} (16... g5 17. Bxg5 Rg8 {With the game move, Hiarcs eval is +1.9 for White}) 17. Ne4 h6 {Hiarcs says this was a mistake. It suggested instead} (17... Nb6 {eval is now +2.6 for White}) 18. c4 Nb6 19. Qf3 Qa8 20. b3 Nd7 21. Bb2 a5 {Hiarcs says this is a mistake. It suggests instead} (21... g6) 22. Rd3 a4 {Again Hiarcs says Black needs to do} (22... g6 {eval now +3.0 for White}) 23. Rad1 Qa5 {Hiarcs says this is a mistake (eval now +3.6 for White). It suggests instead} (23... Rh7) 24. Nf5 axb3 25. axb3 Qb6 26. Nfg3 Rd8 {Hiarcs says this is a huge mistake (eval now +8.6 for White). Again it suggests} (26... g6 {although Black is already lost (eval +4.5 for White)}) 27. Nh5 c6 28. Nf4 Bf5 29. e6 Rh7 30. exf7+ Kxf7 31. Ng3 Bxd3 32. Nd5+ 1-0
Model Citizen mentioned that the opening book had been disabled for Fritz - so that explains move 5. But the other small and large mistakes pointed out above make it seem like there must have been something else wrong with Fritz during this game. I don't have Fritz available to me, but don't think this game properly represents Fritz's abilities and I strongly recommend that the image of this game be replaced with another one that is more representative. - Hayne 15:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- You can note, however, that Fruit is a stronger engine than Fritz is, because it leads Fritz to positions where it's abilities are weakened. I don't think omitting a program's weaknesses would be good for an encyclopedia. Readers need to see both sides of the story. Fetofs Hello! 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fruit may well be a stronger engine than Fritz. But my point above is that the game shown does not provide any evidence for (or against) that hypothesis since that game seems to have been played with a badly configured Fritz. Thus the game is misleading and so I repeat my recommendation that a more representative image should be used on this page. It doesn't matter if the image shows Fritz winning or losing as long as the game seems reasonable. The game in the current image does not seem reasonable - even though I don't have Fritz to try it myself, I find it it very hard to believe that any top engine would make those moves when correctly configured.
[edit] Fritz vs Deep Thought (Deep Blue prototype)
The reference for my edit adding the clarification about the Fritz-Deep Thought match (that Fritz' opening book was what accounted for the win) was the news page reporting on that tournament at that time: http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/news/events/pastevents/WCCC8/latest.html That page seems not to be currently available from that URL but it is accessible via Google's cacahe: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/news/events/pastevents/WCCC8/latest.html I believe I also read about this in Hsu's book about Deep Blue (Behind Deep Blue) but my copy is currently out on loan so I'll have to wait to cite this source. - Hayne 09:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Priority of fixing Pocket Fritz database problem
I edited the main page to add some information about Pocket Fritz. I mentioned Chessbase's lack of support with this product. (Chessbase have changed their online database, so a feature that did work in Pocket Fritz 2, no longer does). There was a link to this as a newgroup article, but someone added "citation needed". I've changed the link slightly, so it's a bit more obvious, but it was there before on the same web page. This was quoted in an email I received from Chessbase. The actual sentance is "I informed the developers again. The feature does not have a high priority, but it should naturally work! I hope that clarifies this.
From Peter Schreiner ChessBase GmbH
I informed the developers again. The feature does not have a high priority, but it should naturally work !
Kind regards -Peter Schreiner
- Wikipedia is not a support forum. I've removed your compaints. --IanOsgood 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal: all the Fritz versions in the world
There are many Fritz articles floating around in Wikipedia-land. They're short enough to be all combined here. Xiner 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. I'll add the merge templates. I also think the X3D Fritz game scores should be deleted for brevity; the main article already provides a link to those games. --IanOsgood 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not in favour of deleting the games scores; with the intro and diagrams they form a nice resource. Indeed, the man-machine matches are worthy of better coverage. My suggestion is to merge the software content of the articles under Fritz (chess) and create a new article Fritz - man v machine to deal with the three matches. This would also absorb Brains in Bahrain converting 5 articles into 2. If this is acceptable I will do the work. BlueValour 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fine by me (though using the chessboard template for the positions would be more consistent). Do you know where I can read about Wikipedia's guidelines for 1) whether to include chess game scores (e.g. notability) and 2) the suggested formatting conventions? --IanOsgood 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the template point (but I'm not volunteering to convert since that's not my thing}. There are no guidelines as such but if you take a look at the article FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, the formatting there was the result of much discussion and seems a de facto standard. BlueValour 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fine by me (though using the chessboard template for the positions would be more consistent). Do you know where I can read about Wikipedia's guidelines for 1) whether to include chess game scores (e.g. notability) and 2) the suggested formatting conventions? --IanOsgood 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not in favour of deleting the games scores; with the intro and diagrams they form a nice resource. Indeed, the man-machine matches are worthy of better coverage. My suggestion is to merge the software content of the articles under Fritz (chess) and create a new article Fritz - man v machine to deal with the three matches. This would also absorb Brains in Bahrain converting 5 articles into 2. If this is acceptable I will do the work. BlueValour 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
