Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:40:25 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 14:58:34, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On May 29, 2001 at 08:43:26, Eduard Nemeth wrote: > >>Are Internet Chessplayer so bad? > > >There you raise a very interesting question, which had me silent for a moment or >two :) (not much longer, hey, don't worry...) > >I looked at the situation when I was at the office and assessed the situation >-amongst the arguments I already mentioned- also with the rule (I always >learned you have *pawns* and *pieces*):"If you ave an extra pawn, trade pieces, >if you have a pawn less, trade pawns and keep pieces" as it's possible to >capture the extra pawn easier with the remaining minor or major pieces you >have,against less defense pssibilities by your opponent for his or her extra >piece. > >And if you have an extra pawn, it should be the pawns should support each other >until they're passed. Before that, they form a better defense against pieces, >the possible attackers, so trade those off the board. > >But it struck me that the game was followed by a lot of people from the computer >chess community, and they might be using their chess engines for analysis. >So now at home I fed the position into a few and found out: > >New game - Fritz 6 >[D]8/8/1p1k1b1p/p1pP1p2/2P1pP2/4P2P/P1K5/3N4 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fritz 6: > >59...b5! > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 1/4 00:00:00 >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 > ³ (-0.47) Depth: 2/6 00:00:00 >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 > ³ (-0.47) Depth: 3/7 00:00:00 >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.b6 > ³ (-0.28) Depth: 4/8 00:00:00 >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 Kd6 > = (-0.22) Depth: 5/12 00:00:00 >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 > = (-0.13) Depth: 6/11 00:00:00 1kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 > = (-0.13) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 3kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.a4 c4 > = (-0.06) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 7kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 > = (-0.19) Depth: 9/15 00:00:00 14kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 h5 64.Kc2 > = (-0.19) Depth: 10/18 00:00:00 25kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 h5 64.Kc2 > = (-0.19) Depth: 11/18 00:00:00 47kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Ne2 Bh4 63.a4 Bf6 64.Ng3 > = (0.00) Depth: 12/18 00:00:00 96kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nb2 Kc5 63.b6 Kxb6 64.Nxc4+ > = (0.00) Depth: 13/20 00:00:00 209kN >59...b5-- > ² (0.31) Depth: 14/22 00:00:01 508kN >59...b5-- > ² (0.31) Depth: 14/22 00:00:01 529kN >59...Bg7! > ² (0.28) Depth: 14/23 00:00:01 734kN >59...Bg7 60.Kb3 b5 61.cxb5 Kxd5 62.Nc3+ Bxc3 63.Kxc3 a4 64.a3 > ² (0.31) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1382kN >59...b5! > ² (0.28) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1422kN >59...b5! 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 Bh4 62.Nc3+ Ke6 63.Nd1 Kd6 64.Kb3 > = (0.00) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1694kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 > = (0.25) Depth: 16/26 00:00:04 2270kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 64.h4 > ² (0.37) Depth: 17/27 00:00:06 3379kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 > ² (0.37) Depth: 18/29 00:00:12 6426kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Be7 63.Kc4 Bh4 64.Nd5 > = (0.25) Depth: 19/33 00:00:18 9600kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 > = (0.22) Depth: 20/37 00:00:39 15559kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 > = (0.19) Depth: 21/37 00:01:04 26712kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 > = (0.22) Depth: 22/39 00:01:37 42596kN >59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 > = (0.22) Depth: 23/40 00:02:45 79327kN >59...b5-- > ² (0.53) Depth: 24/41 00:04:52 142206kN >59...b5-- > ² (0.53) Depth: 24/45 00:05:32 164653kN >59...h5! > ² (0.50) Depth: 24/45 00:06:25 191023kN >59...h5! 60.Kb3 Bd8 61.Ka4 Kd7 62.a3 Kc7 63.Kb5 Bh4 64.Ka6 > = (0.22) Depth: 24/46 00:08:17 252481kN > >So Fritz doesn't observe real problems for 59...b5? for quite some analysis >time. > >I also put the position into Shredder 5 which so often finds other solutions and >it gave: > >Engine: Shredder 5 >by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen >position: 0 1 > > 11.01 0:01 -0.46 1...h5 2.Kb3 h4 3.Ka4 Bd8 4.Kb5 Bc7 5.a4 Bd8 6.Nc3 Bf6 >(147.472) 137.6 > 12.01 0:02 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bb2 >7.Na7 Bf6 (391.075) 174.5 > 13.01 0:02 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bg7 >7.Kf2 Bb2 (565.422) 197.2 > 14.01 0:03 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bg7 >7.Na7 Bb2 8.Nc6 (726.018) 212.9 > 14.02 0:03 -0.36++ 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.b6 Kc6 5.b7 Kxb7 6.Kxc3 >h5 7.a4 c4 8.Kxc4 Kb6 9.Kd5 (801.050) 216.7 > 14.02 0:03 -0.33 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.Kxc3 a4 5.a3 h5 6.h4 c4 >7.b6 Kc6 8.Kxc4 Kxb6 9.Kd5 (848.833) 221.3 > 15.01 0:05 -0.38 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.Kxc3 a4 5.Kb2 c4 6.Kc3 Kc5 >7.b6 Kxb6 8.Kxc4 Ka5 9.h4 h5 (1.326.560) 241.4 > 15.02 0:05 -0.37++ 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 (1.425.677) 246.0 > 15.02 0:05 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Bd8 (1.452.697) 247.0 > 16.01 0:07 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kd7 3.a4 h4 4.Kb3 Bd8 5.Nb5 Bf6 6.Na7 >(2.018.007) 260.7 > 17.01 0:19 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 >7.Ne2 Bf2 (5.577.991) 279.2 > 18.01 0:29 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 >7.Ne2 Bf2 (8.406.412) 282.8 > 19.01 0:48 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 >7.Ne2 Bf2 (13.042.754) 270.8 > 20.01 1:10 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 >7.d6 (19.944.817) 281.6 > 21.01 1:55 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a3 Kd6 6.a4 Kd7 >7.Kd1 Kd6 8.Kc2 (32.697.325) 282.8 > 22.01 2:42 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a3 Kd6 6.a4 Ke7 >7.d6+ Kxd6 8.Nc3 (45.191.657) 278.9 > 23.01 4:10 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.Nc3 Bd8 6.Ne2 Bh4 >7.Nc3 (67.781.569) 270.4 >best move: h6-h5 time: 5:09.167 min n/s: 261.756 nodes: 80.924.551 TB: 8 > > >It does indeed discard b5, but calculates the "wrong" line quite regularly, yet >doesn't assess it as bad as it turned out. > >Basically I don't think the web chess players are that bad, but maybe they did >rely too much on their chess engines, and too little on their own chess >judgement. I suspect that they trusted too much their own judgment and did not give their programs hours to calculate. I believe that using my judgment may be a mistake in correspondence games because there are a lot of things that I do not understand when computers understand them after a long search. I use my judgment but I am very carful in doing it. I almost always accept computer's moves and the main problem is to decide which program to use. I believe that humans should give programs a long time to calculate(the analysis that you give suggest that chess programs can avoid b5 after enough time). Humans should reject the computer move only in rare cases and only after analysis with their chess programs. They should use their own judgment mainly to decide which program to trust and if they suspect that program A does not understand the position they should use program B. Uri
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.