Author: Amir Ban
Date: 02:27:13 03/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2000 at 20:40:51, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On March 04, 2000 at 20:23:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Two issues: >> >>(1) it is only necessary that the program win the game, not win it in the >>shortest number of moves. You entered a raw position, which means there is >>no 'context' of what might be repetitions. It will take many checks before >>it learns which are leading to repetitions, and then starts to migrate the >>king in the right direction, only to avoid the draws. IMHO this is perfectly >>ok, just so it wins and doesn't draw. >> >>(2) tablebases solve this instantly. > >Your two points are quite in order. Still, what I find a little irritating is >the inability of otherwise strong programs to "see" winning sequences in >perfectly plain positions, such as the one I quoted. And that is all. Somehow >I still cannot accept the programs' blindness in such situations, especially if >the path to winning is a matter of a single quick glance for humans. It is >actually the "understanding" of positions that is sometimes so sadly missing in >programs. Therefore I guess that your evaluation of top programs not yet being >GM's is not very far off the mark :-) It is positions like this that may sober >up avid comp chess fans. > >*** Djordje In this position Junior wants the king to keep an eye on the enemy pawn. It is difficult to see a quiet king walk in a direction opposite to what evaluation recommends. The normal plan in such a position is to first destroy the dangerous enemy pawn, then march against the king. This is not possible here, and the program doesn't realize it. In most cases, search, the 50 move rule, and tablebases would take care of it, but not always. Amir
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.