Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 20:39:02 01/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 1998 at 18:29:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Some of the Bratko-Kopec positions were like this, but there were a few >that I disagreed with, Kmoch be damned. :) But they were nice in that >deeper searches wouldn't help if you didn't understand the particular >pawn structure nuance they were targeting... The problem I had with some of the BK problems wasn't that the problems had incorrect solutions, but rather that programs would find answers for superficial reasons. For instance, position 4, which is from Spielmann vs Walter, 1928: rnbqkb1r/p3pppp/1p6/2ppP3/3N4/2P5/PPP1QPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 1 The key is 1. e6, is meant to be a sacrifice. The reply 1. ... fxe6 is crushed by 2. Qh5+, but there is nothing in the test that ensures that programs understand the consequences of 1. ... fxe6. I bet many of the programs tested by BK over the years would not have played 2. Qh5+. Here is this position: rnbqkb1r/p3p1pp/1p2p3/2pp4/3N4/2P5/PPP1QPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 2 How long does it take your favorite program to find 2. Qh5+ here? Imagine how far beyond *any* micro this was in 1980 or so, but there they all are, getting full credit for this problem, they all found 1. e6. My favorite BK problem is #22: 2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b - - 0 1 The key is 1. ... Bxe4. This was a very good recapture extension problem in its day, but now you'll probably find it in a second or two. bruce
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.