Author: Robin Smith
Date: 15:23:27 07/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2005 at 15:59:30, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. > >If I were playing white here, I guess I would lose. If we change the color to >move to black like this: >[D]5B2/8/8/8/6kp/8/7K/1r6 b - - > >I would feel like I could win. Crafty said Rd1, but I would push the white king >down with the rook OK; 1...Rb2+ 2Kh1 >and add pressure by slow advance of the pawn >(maybe bad, but seems natural to me). 2...h3? 3.Bd6 draw. Black has to keep the White bishop off the b8-h2 diagonal to maintain the win. That's why crafty wants to play 1...Rd1. Averbach calls the case of rook + rooks pawn vs bishop, where the defending bishop does _not_ cover the queening square, the "safe" corner; because it often can be drawn while if the bishop covers the queening square the rook always wins. -Robin >I was a bit surprised how distant the win is, so more >than likely I would actually screw up and just draw as black (Crafty said ce >32732). > >I guess it is a lot tougher than it looks. > >>-Robin >> >>>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.