Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:23:05 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 08:03:41, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On May 20, 2000 at 14:52:56, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On May 20, 2000 at 14:08:51, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2000 at 13:20:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On May 20, 2000 at 10:04:58, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 20, 2000 at 09:27:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 20, 2000 at 07:11:31, Terje Vagle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - >>>>>>> >>>>>>>After 45. Ra6, Fritz suggests Qe3 for black and evaluates the position as 0,94. >>>>>>>It does not seem to find the famous draw-line for Kasparov. >>>>>>>10 hours analysis on PIII-600, and 28006383 KN evaluated >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Does any other program find the draw-line? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Terje >>>>>> >>>>>>The draw is somewhere around 60 plies deep, total. I don't think anyone is >>>>>>going to find that. >>>>> >>>>>60 plies? No way. More like half that. A lot of humans have no trouble >>>>>calculating the draw to the end. I found it myself without any assistance of any >>>>>kind. The only thing difficult about that draw is the psychological barrier. >>>>>This Kaspy failed to overcome as we all know. >>>>> >>>>>As for computer programs, judging from the Chris Janeke post, commercial >>>>>programs have no trouble finding the draw with a 5 ply headstart. If it were >>>>>really 60 plies, I don't see how that would be possible. >>>> >>>>Oh yeah? You'd see the part that goes h4 h5? It's not that easy. I helped >>>>analyze this with a GM and an IM the day it happened, and they spent hours >>>>trying to prove that there was a win. >>> >>>Yeah. I found h4 too and I remember the only reply I considered was h5. >> >>Is this the drawing line? The evaluation of Fritz 6b is not 0.00, but it's >>getting there. >> >>Enrique >> >>Deep Blue - Kasparov,G >>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Fritz 6: >> >>45...Qxc6-- >> ± (0.72) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >>45...Qxc6-- >> ± (0.72) Depth: 1/6 00:00:00 >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 >> ² (0.47) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 >> ² (0.62) Depth: 3/10 00:00:00 >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 >> ² (0.59) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00 1kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.g3 >> ² (0.69) Depth: 5/12 00:00:00 3kN >>45...Qxc6-- >> ± (1.00) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 8kN >>45...Qxc6-- 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.12) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 11kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke7 49.Rxb5 >> ± (1.22) Depth: 7/18 00:00:00 31kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke7 49.Ke2 Kd6 50.Rxb5 >> ± (1.28) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 59kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Rd8 47.Ra7+ Kf8 48.Rb7 Rb8 49.Rd7 >> ± (1.37) Depth: 9/18 00:00:00 131kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ra8 >> +- (1.44) Depth: 10/21 00:00:00 309kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ra8 >> +- (1.44) Depth: 11/22 00:00:01 517kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 h5 49.Rxb5 Ke7 50.Bd5 >> +- (1.62) Depth: 12/24 00:00:05 2353kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke8 49.Rxg7 Ra8 50.c7 >> +- (1.72) Depth: 13/27 00:00:08 4066kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 h5 49.Rxb5 Ke7 >> +- (1.72) Depth: 14/26 00:00:14 7078kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 h5 49.Rxb5 Ke7 50.Ra5 >> +- (1.75) Depth: 15/28 00:00:26 12926kN >>45...Qe3! >> +- (1.72) Depth: 15/41 00:01:33 43976kN >>45...Qe3! 46.Qd7+ Kg8 47.Qxd6 Rf8 48.Qe6+ Kh7 49.Bf3 Qc1+ 50.Kf2 >> ± (1.25) Depth: 15/41 00:02:03 57808kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 >> +- (1.53) Depth: 16/42 00:05:13 146128kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 >> ± (1.28) Depth: 17/46 00:13:16 369407kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 18/46 00:32:34 906397kN >> >>(P600E/202MB, Cadaqués 20.05.2000) > >Well, this is what Ed gives on the Rebel pages: > >"Analysing this with Rebel we tried to find out the longest defense till the >draw (repetition) would be found. Well it is at least 36 plies. Even for DB >super machine that's too much. > > The line goes like this: 45.Ra6? Qe3! 46.Qxd6 Re8! 47.h4! h5! 48.Bf3 Qc1+ >49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 Qe3+ 52.Kh2 Qf4+ 53.Kh3 Qxf5+ 54.Kh2 Qf4+ 55.Kg1 >Qe3+ 56.Kf1 Qc1+ 57.Kf2 Qf4+ 58.Ke1 Qc1+ 59.Bd1 Qxc3+ 60.Kf1 Qc1! 61.Ke2 Qb2+ >62.Kf1 Qc1 > >Note 60..Qc1! > >It's a (quiet) non checking move. Perhaps the reason why no program can find >45..Qe3 with a draw score?" > >With some version of Crafty a while back, I let it run for a week or two on my >machine to see if it could find the draw. It followed Ed's line for a while (up >to ply 20 or so), and the evaluation actually dropped to 0.00 at one point. >Unfortunately, it could not see 60. ...Qc1!! and thought it could find a way out >of the perpetual. The score went back up at about ply 21, and continued to rise >through about 23, where I stopped it. It was back to +1.xx. I don't think any >program is capable of finding the entire correct line here. Just as Ed says, I >think it's because of the non-checking move 60. ...Qc1!! that gets pruned this >deeply in the tree. > >Jeremiah You could try to start the analysis (for another week) starting with 48..Qc1+ (skipping the first non-quiet moves) till the program sees the drwaw. Then you really get the picture how hard this position is. :) Ed
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.