Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 07:15:30 04/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2004 at 09:41:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 24, 2004 at 09:18:27, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On April 24, 2004 at 08:47:42, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2004 at 08:07:48, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2004 at 07:32:32, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2004 at 07:04:44, Johan Havegheer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hello >>>>>> >>>>>>Ruffian won against The King in a tremendous endgame >>>>>> >>>>>>To djordje : Everything is working fine, out off book against Hydra yesterday >>>>>>with >>>>>>+ 0.56 >>>>>> >>>>>>We lost against Hydra due to the depth and a wrong plan in the endgame >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What do you mean that you lost due to the depth. >>>>>Did Ruffian need another ply to avoid the losing blunder? >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Ruffian reaches ply 18 easily here, but it still clings on to gxh4. It needs >>>>play 19 to see that things are not peachy. (BTW, Hydra was doing a 20 ply search >>>>here.) But I doubt that a single CPU version of Ruffian could actually avoid >>>>the move at the Leiden time controls anyway. As already pointed out some other >>>>programs also go for the pawn. What does Movei do? >>>> >>>>Djordje >>> >>> I doubt that it's a matter of depth and would rather say >>> it's a matter of chess knowledge. >>> Kurt >> >> >> >>I tend to disagree with you here. I'm pretty sure that Ruffian has more endgame >>knowledge than Hydra :-). Another issue crops up here -- and I think that we >>will disagree on that one too: I think that deep search = knowledge (good >>examples can be Deep Blue and, nowadays, Hydra). But this is more of a >>philosophical issue and I'd like to spare both you and the CCC membership as the >>issue can easily turn into a flame war. >> >>Thanks for the insight anyway. > >What about knowledge of better time management? >gxh4 increase the number of passed pawns for both sides so you can decide to use >more time when you plan to make a move that increase the number of passed pawns >of both sides. > >Uri You made a very good point. However, if I remember correctly, Ruffian used quite a lot of time for gxh4 but could not find a better continuation. I also wanted to add that my comment regarding Hydra's endgame knowledge was rather unfortunate and incorrect. It was based on speculation, as I presumed that speed was what mattered most in Hydra. After talking to Alexander Kure on playchess.com today I found out that Ch. Donninger had implemented lots of endgame knowledge in Hydra, so that h4! was to be expected. Thus I apologise for my unfounded speculation :-). Djordje
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.