Author: Slater Wold
Date: 15:58:30 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 18:54:41, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 01, 2001 at 18:39:42, Slater Wold wrote:
>
>>On October 01, 2001 at 13:36:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On September 30, 2001 at 17:36:18, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>
>>>>When Junior 7 was released a few months back, most people who used it said that
>>>>it was too aggressive, and sometimes would give material for almost no reason.
>>>>
>>>>Those claims were hushed shortly after it won the WMCCC.
>>>>
>>>>This game was a game against Chess Tiger 14.0, played on playchess.com. It
>>>>shows a great example of Deep Junior giving away a piece, for little if any
>>>>compensation.
>>>>
>>>>I understand that in essence, it is trading a piece for 3 pawns. But any human
>>>>can look at the board and see, it's a trade that won't pay off in the end.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chess Tiger 14.0 - Deep Junior 7 [D53]
>>>>
>>>> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qd2 dxc4 {Last book
>>>>move for Deep Junior 7} 8.e4 c5 9.d5 exd5 10.e5 Nd7 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Qe3+ Qe7
>>>>13.Qxe7+ Kxe7 14.0-0-0 Be6 15.Re1 Rhc8 16.g3 d4 17.Nb5 c3 18.bxc3 a6 19.Na3 Kf8
>>>>20.Bc4 Bh3 21.Ne5 Rc7 22.cxd4 cxd4 23.Kd2 Rac8 24.f3 Bf5 25.Rc1 Re8 26.Rhe1 Bh7
>>>>27.Bb3 Rxc1 28.Kxc1 b5 29.Nc2 Rc8 30.Kd2 Bxc2 31.Bxc2 Rc3 32.f4 a5 33.Bb3 g5
>>>>34.fxg5 hxg5 35.Bxf7 b4 36.Be6 a4 37.Ng6+ Ke8 38.Bb3+ Re3 39.Bxa4+ Kf7 40.Bc2
>>>>Rxe1 41.Kxe1 Ng4 42.h4 Kf6 43.h5 Ne3 44.Be4 Kg7 45.Ne5 g4 46.Nc6 Kh6 47.Nxb4 Nc4
>>>>48.Bg6 Kg5 49.Nc6 d3 50.Bxd3 Nb6 51.Bg6 Nd5 52.Ne5 Nb6 53.Kf2 Na4 54.Nxg4 Nc5
>>>>55.Kf3 Ne6 56.a4 Nd4+ 57.Ke4 Ne2 58.Be8 Nxg3+ 59.Kd5 1-0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The key position is this:
>>>>
>>>>[D]rnbqk2r/pp3pp1/5b1p/2ppP3/2p5/2N2N2/PP1Q1PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 10
>>>>
>>>>Here Deep Junior 7 plays 10...Nd7?? with this eval:
>>>>
>>>>W,S - Deep Junior 7
>>>>rnbqk2r/pp3pp1/5b1p/2ppP3/2p5/2N2N2/PP1Q1PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 1
>>>>
>>>>Analysis by Deep Junior 7:
>>>>
>>>>10...Bh4 11.Nxh4 Qxh4 12.Qxd5
>>>> ³ (-0.32) Depth: 3 00:00:00
>>>>10...Bg5 11.Nxg5 Qxg5 12.Qxd5
>>>> ³ (-0.33) Depth: 3 00:00:00
>>>>10...Bg5 11.Nxg5 Qxg5 12.Qxd5
>>>> ³ (-0.33) Depth: 3 00:00:00
>>>>10...Bg5 11.Qxd5 Qxd5 12.Nxd5 c3 13.Nxc3
>>>> = (-0.10) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
>>>>10...Bg5 11.Nxg5
>>>> = (0.20) Depth: 9 00:00:00 94kN
>>>>10...Bg5 11.Qxd5 Nc6 12.Qxc4 Nd4 13.Rd1 Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Qc7 15.f4 Bh4 16.Qa4+ Bd7
>>>>17.Bb5 Bxb5
>>>> = (0.23) Depth: 12 00:00:01 1645kN
>>>>10...Be7 11.Qxd5 Nc6 12.Bxc4 Qxd5 13.Nxd5 Bd8 14.0-0-0
>>>> = (0.21) Depth: 12 00:00:02 2218kN
>>>>10...Be7 11.Nxd5 b5 12.b3 Bg4 13.bxc4 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Nd7 15.Nxe7 Qxe7
>>>> = (0.18) Depth: 15 00:00:07 12048kN
>>>>10...Nd7 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Qe3+ Qe7 13.Nb5 Be6 14.Qe5 Ng4 15.Qxg7 0-0-0 16.h3 Rhg8
>>>>17.Nxa7+ Kb8 18.Qc3 Nxf2 19.Kxf2 Kxa7
>>>> = (-0.01) Depth: 15 00:00:37 23534kN
>>>>10...Nd7 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Qe3+ Qe7 13.Qxe7+ Kxe7 14.Ne5 Be6 15.0-0-0 d4 16.Na4
>>>>Ne4 17.Bxc4 Bxc4 18.Nxc4 Nxf2
>>>> = (-0.12) Depth: 18 00:03:58 448237kN
>>>>
>>>>(W, 30.09.2001)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Slate
>>>
>>>
>>>That seems wrong, of course. I get a score of near zero for Be7. Bg5
>>>is the suggested book move. After Nd7 I get a score of roughly +1 for
>>>white. A piece for three pawns almost always loses unless it ends up in
>>>a king and pawn ending quickly and the pawns are mobile.
>>>
>>>This certainly isn't that case..
>>
>>Well, that was kinda my *sentiment*. Show a 1500 player this, and they'll laugh
>>at the idea. Because the idea is 1 knight for 3 pawns. That's it. Not a
>>knight and 3 pawns for mobility, or an easily won endgame, or anything
>>reasonable.
>>
>>Then tell that 1500 that Deep Junior 7 getting 1.88M nps makes this move, and
>>they'll laugh. (This is from an actual test of my own.)
>>
>>Perhaps this is a case of taking the good with the bad...........
>>
>>
>>
>>Slate
>
>They may laugh but I am practically sure that 1500 players are going to lose
>with the piece against the 3 pawns of Deep Junior.
>
>I believe that Junior can see some positional bonus in this specific case
>because it is not the program that is usually happy to sacrifice a piece for 3
>pawns.
>
>I remember that there was a game when shredder lost for sacrificing a piece for
>3 pawns when Junior7 understood that the human has the advantage after the
>trade.
>
>Uri
True enough.
But it's like Petr said after defeating Deep Shredder on my dual Xeon's:
"The problem with chess computers is they play like a 1500 player, and 2800
player, all in the same game."
Slate
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.