Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:47:53 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 16:01:19, Uri Blass wrote:
>On July 05, 2002 at 15:45:21, Sune Fischer wrote:
>
>>On July 05, 2002 at 13:29:16, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>Note that a program does not have to find the long mate in order to play perfect
>>>chess.
>>>
>>>It only needs not to do mistakes.
>>>
>>>Let assume for the discussion that not doing mistake in KRB vs KBN position may
>>>be a hard problem that cannot be solved by searching 50 plies forward(I am not
>>>sure if it is the case)
>>>
>>>I still believe that black can avoid the trouble of being the weaker side in KRB
>>>vs KBN position by searching 50 plies forward so it does not prove that
>>>searching 50 plies forward is not enough never to lose games.
>>
>>Assume we didn't have the KRB-KBN table and that we were having this duscussion
>>the day before it was completed. We would be betting on a position X, and your
>>argument would be (if I understand you right) that because 99.5% of all the
>>games that reached position X ended draw, the position would be more likely to
>>be drawn. The table base would then show us, that white can in fact win it.
>>
>>I believe these endgames are usually easier to draw than to win.
>>Sometimes the winning side must play almost perfect for 100 moves, where as the
>>drawing side often has more than 1 alternative. Ocasionally the right winning
>>move has to be found by a search to very end (forced mate), the point is you can
>>not know if/when there are any of these moves just bcause you always get draws.
>>
>>Your example with KRB-KBN requires that kind of depth to win, the right moves
>>are too obscure to be found by an "evaluation" search.
>>
>>-S.
>
>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king
>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough.
>
>Uri
Ok, but I disagree, while I wrote my post I was thinking of these words:
"But the Perfect Game of the database endgames is another matter altogether. I
urge you to play over the moves of the solutions, preferably with the
PGN-viewer, where they are in the illustr.pgn file. They are beyond
comprehension. A grandmaster wouldn't be better at these endgames than someone
who had learned chess yesterday. It's a sort of chess that has nothing to do
with chess, a chess that we could never have imagined without computers. The
Stiller moves are awesome, almost scary, because you know they are the truth,
God's Algorithm - it's like being revealed the Meaning of Life, but you don't
understand one word.
And if you're not going to play over these moves - have a look at them at
least, just to see what Truth looks like typographically. "
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/perfect.htm
There is also this one in 271 moves:
http://www.geocities.com/izmitcon/longest.htm
-S.
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.