Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 23:14:49 07/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2005 at 02:01:09, Robin Smith wrote: >On July 05, 2005 at 20:20:25, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 05, 2005 at 20:06:51, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On July 05, 2005 at 20:03:28, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On July 05, 2005 at 19:55:33, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 05, 2005 at 19:26:39, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 05, 2005 at 15:04:13, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 05, 2005 at 14:41:42, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 05, 2005 at 13:37:55, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 05, 2005 at 13:01:07, Yar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>8/7p/4k3/2B5/1P2K3/1r6/8/8 b - - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes it appears to be a draw unless there is something hidden in the position? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is a 6-men position. As far as I know, this particular 6-men TB has never >>>>>>>>been available from Robert Hyatt's ftp. But Marc Bourzutschky has created all >>>>>>>>6-men TBs in the chessmaster format. He should be able to give a definite result >>>>>>>>to this position. He might not read this thread. You should be able to find his >>>>>>>>email adress by the CCC search engine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>Dieter >>>>>>> >>>>>>>C:\Crafty>wcrafty.exe >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Initializing multiple threads. >>>>>>>System is SMP, not NUMA. >>>>>>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>>>>>book is disabled >>>>>>>unable to open book file [./books.bin]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Crafty v19.18 (1 cpus) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>White(1): tbpath=k:\32;k:\21;k:\41;k:\31;k:\22;f:\33p >>>>>>>6 piece tablebase files found >>>>>>>93611kb of RAM used for TB indices and decompression tables >>>>>>>White(1): 8/7p/4k3/2B5/1P2K3/1r6/8/8 b - - >>>>>>>1. ... Rb1! 2. Kf4! Kd5! 3. Kg5 Ke4! 4. Kg4! Ra1 5. Bb6 Ra6 6. Bc5! >>>>>>>Rg6+! 7. Kh3! Kf3! 8. Kh2! Rg2+ 9. Kh3! Rb2 10. Bf8 Rb1! 11. Kh2! >>>>>>>Kg4! 12. Bg7 Rxb4! 13. Be5! Ra4 14. Bb8 Ra2+ 15. Kg1! Kh3 16. Bc7 >>>>>>>Rg2+ 17. Kf1! Rg4 18. Kf2! Rg6 19. Bb8 Rg2+ 20. Kf1! Rg4! 21. Bc7 >>>>>>>Kh4! 22. Bb8 Kg5 23. Kf2 Kf5 24. Bg3 h5! 25. Kf3! h4! 26. Bb8 Rb4 >>>>>>>27. Ba7! Rb2 28. Bd4! Ra2 29. Bb6 h3! 30. Bc7! h2! 31. Bxh2! Rxh2! >>>>>>>32. Ke3! Rh4 33. Kd3! Re4 34. Kc3 Kf4! 35. Kd3 Kf3! 36. Kd2 Re3! >>>>>>>37. Kd1! Re2! 38. Kc1 Rf2 39. Kd1 Ke3! 40. Kc1! Kd3! 41. Kb1! Kc3! >>>>>>>42. Ka1! Kb3! 43. Kb1 Rf1# >>>>>>> puzzling over a move to ponder. >>>>>>> depth time score variation (1) >>>>>>>Black(1): Rb1 [pondering] >>>>>>> clearing hash tables >>>>>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 30.00 (3:30) >>>>>>> depth time score variation (1) >>>>>>> time=0.02 cpu=0% mat=-2 n=113 fh=100% nps=10K >>>>>>> ext-> chk=0 cap=0 pp=0 1rep=0 mate=0 >>>>>>> predicted=0 nodes=113 evals=17 50move=0 >>>>>>> endgame tablebase-> probes=15 hits=15 >>>>>>> hashing-> 65%(raw) 65%(depth) 0%(sat) 94%(pawn) >>>>>>> hashing-> 65%(exact) 0%(lower) 0%(upper) >>>>>>> SMP-> split=0 stop=0 data=0/128 cpu=0.00 elap=0.02 >>>>>> >>>>>>A win for Black?! I think White is wrong with its K moves and Bg7?? dropping the >>>>>>b pawn, after that its lost!? >>>>> >>>>>By 12.Bg7 white is definitely lost. >>>> >>>>Yes, that is losing outright. >>>>I would at lest try Bc5. >>> >>>Rb2+ and mate in 32 as well. >> >>[D]5B2/7p/8/8/1P4k1/8/7K/1r6 w - - >> >>I honestly believe I could take black, play against a computer with 6 man EGTB >>and still win this position (or at least on 2/3 tries). For some reason, this >>looks pretty obvious to me. > >[D] 5B2/8/8/8/6kp/8/7K/1r6 w - - > >Does this position also looks like any easy win? Ironically with White's pawn >gone and Black's further advanced it is now a draw. They key to Black winning is >keeping the pawn as far back as possible, only moving it forward to put White in >zugzwang. > >-Robin Very good, no wonder I at first glance thought the oringinal position a draw! Time to work on my Basic Endings!:/ > >>On the other hand, I would probably screw up and draw or lose, but it sure looks >>like an easy win. >> >>>>>Since there is no exclamation point by Bg7, there are several alternatives that >>>>>are equally good/bad depending upon how you look at it (e.g. for 2.Kf4, that is >>>>>clearly the best response but for other moves there may not be a single best >>>>>reply.) >>>>> >>>>>>Are you sure there isn't a bug at work here?? >>>>> >>>>>Looks fine to me. Omniscient tablebase files often cause magically strange >>>>>looking moves. I am guessing that analysis will show there is not a better >>>>>response. >>>> >>>>Maybe, it appears a zugzwang is in the making. TB's certainly don't work like >>>>our minds, and it messed me up a bit.
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.