Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:43:50 05/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 22:35:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 11, 1998 at 17:33:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >> >>On May 11, 1998 at 14:06:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 11, 1998 at 02:27:47, Howard Exner wrote: >>> >>>>On May 10, 1998 at 20:49:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>> round 1 was a lucky win by Kasparov... one or two tempi >>>>>and things turn totally around... >>>> >>>>Could you elaborate on this assertion? The way I'm reading >>>>it know is, "You were lucky to mate me because I was just about >>>>to mate you!" >>> >>> >>>Here's what a GM told me in looking over this. Basically, after >>>the fireworks were over, Kasparov had two passed pawns, while DB >>>had material. in most positions, the passed pawns (only two) would >>>not be enough to win, they would be blockaded and won. But in this >>>game, everything "just came together" to make this not happen. But >>>if you move one of the pawns back a rank, or up a rank, or make some >>>other modification to the board, the outcome could be quite different. >>> >>>Now the question is, did Kasparov "see" the ending, and *know* that he >>>could win? Hard to say. *if* he did, then there was no "luck". But >>>I don't believe he calculated that deeply, and he relied on "intuition" >>>that just happened to work in that game. In another game his "winning >>>intuition" was wrong and he drew what most thought was a won endgame >>>for him. >>> >>>I've seen Crafty hit such positions, once in the GM match last week in >>>the first round against Roman. bishops of opposite color. What >>>appeared >>>to be dead drawn to all watching. But everything was just set up so >>>that >>>it wasn't... was it luck or skill? Hard to say... but luck certainly >>>smiled on silicon in that game, IMHO. I'd bet that against a GM, Crafty >>>would draw 8 of every 10 such endgames. I'd bet that against DB, Garry >>>would lose 8 of every 10 such positions... >>> >>>But that's only an opinion, because I don't know what he really "saw". >>>I just suspect it didn't include what actually happened... >> >>Crafty is not doing checks in q-search, which makes you play these >>type of endings horrible, no matter how well your evaluation of it is, >>if you cannot look it up in EGTB. >> >>Just test it for a while: checks in q-search in the rook >>endgame, and you'll see that besides searching less deeply, your >>moves will improve. >> >>For some reason think crafty is not the standard chessprogram to see how >>to play rook endings are played by pc programs. >> >>Better look at how The King or Rebel plays it. >> >>Greetings, >>Vincent. > > >maybe we just disagree here. Crafty is currently playing a rook ending >vs Rebel in the KKup, and apparently winning it. Checks in the qsearch >are not absolutely essential, if regular extensions cover it well >enough. >Again, don't tell me my approach is wrong... prove it to me... You play >enough games vs Crafty on ICC to be able to report how it plays..??? >I can give your "lifetime" win/lose/draw score vs Crafty if you'd >like... The new version in fact has 3.5 out of 4 against crafty 2.5 out of 3 against Moron: 1: Crafty v15.5 (2 cpus) 2: Dual 333/PII Linux(2.1.101) 1 out of 1 against 1: Crafty v15.6 (4 cpus) 2: computer operators: limit consecutive games to 4 or less or risk getting +noplay'ed. I get too many complaints from IM/GM players about getting locked out by another computer playing Crafty... Thanks... 3: ALR Quad-6 P6/200 X 4, 512mb RAM, Linux 2.1.99 Here the history of DoctorWho: 19: = 2416 B 2461 Moron [ sr 15 15] C55 Rep May 12 98 02:29 18: + 2414 W 2501 crafty [ sr 30 30] C45 Res May 11 98 05:23 16: + 2392 B 2463 Moron [ sr 15 15] B12 Mat May 10 98 01:02 15: + 2371 W 2484 Moron [ sr 15 15] C30 Mat May 09 98 23:37 So to answer your question Bob: 3.5 out of 4 is almost 90% against at least 3 times faster hardware. Vincent
This page took 0.01 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.