Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 21:43:00 06/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2000 at 15:14:54, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>On June 21, 2000 at 13:53:13, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On June 21, 2000 at 08:30:59, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>
>>>[D]1r6/1pb1k1p1/4p2p/1p1p4/3Pp2P/1R2P1PB/1P2P1K1/8 b - - 0 1
>>>
>>>Yesterday I looked at this position that reveals once again how much trouble
>>>programs have in recognizing the importance of blocked pieces. Some programs
>>>pick and drop 1...b4, but none of them realize that the blocked rook is out of
>>>the game until the search makes them see the consequences many hours later. The
>>>evaluation at the initial position or after 1...b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.Rb3 b4 is almost
>>>the same. It takes 61 minutes for F6a and 335 minutes for Tiger to pick b4, and
>>>much, much longer to fail high.
>>
>>
>>Well, life is unfair. I do have something for this kind of positions in Tiger.
>>Normally Tiger is able to suspect that the rook is in trouble.
>
>Do you have to treat differently the cases of blocked rooks or blocked knights
>and bishops? So many times I hear programmers looking for patterns. Well, this
>is one, isn't it? In the first position, the rook can't move or a pawn will take
>it. In the second and third, the bishop is statically trapped by a chain of
>pawns in a small corner of the board. Technical question from an illiterate:
>wouldn't it make sense to heavily penalize such positions?
>
>For instance, Junior 6a is the program that does best with the first position.
>It picks b4 in 51 seconds and sticks to it forever, but the difference between
>b4 and the next best is only 8/100 of a pawn after 4 hours. So it doesn't quite
>get it, and in the other 3 positions it fails.
>
>>However, for an unknown reason, it looks like it does not work in this here...
>
>Tiger doesn't get the other positions either (no program does). Pattern?
>
>>Sometimes I wonder if adding this kind of knowledge is worth the trouble, as
>>there are so many exceptions, and even cases where the knowledge is counter
>>productive, or is not triggered at the right time!
>
>These positions come from real games, one of them from a computer game, so I
>guess it must be productive to teach them this kind of things. I may be
>exaggerating, but looking at some human-computer games, like the ones lost by
>Fritz in the Dutch championship, it seems clear that blocking positions is an
>efficient anti-computer strategy. But how can a program recognize a general
>blockade if it's incapable of realizing that one piece is trapped?
>
>In my opinion, this also has to do with a more general issue of aesthetics, of
>programs being able to produce some sort of beauty other than announcing mate in
>128.
I don't have much trapped piece code in Rebel. But 1..b4 is quickly found
with a score difference of 1/4 of a pawn in comparison with the previous
best move. I don't know why Rebel picks 1..b4 but in any case trapped piece
code isn't an issue here so there are other positional aspects valid for
this position too.
Ed
_____________________________________________________________
00:00:00 8.07 0.36 1..Kd6 2.Rxb5 e5 3.Rb3 Ba5 4.Bg4
g5 5.hxg5 hxg5 (0)
00:00:01 9.00 0.38 1..Kd6 2.Rxb5 e5 3.Bg4 b6 4.Rb3
Rf8 5.Ra3 Bd8 (1)
00:00:03 10.00 0.39 1..Kd6 2.Rxb5 e5 3.Bg4 b6 4.Rb3
Rf8 5.Ra3 Bd8 6.Ra1 (2)
00:00:05 10.16 0.39 1..b4
00:00:06 10.16 0.56 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.Bg4 Bd6 4.Rb3
b4 5.h5 Rf8 (5)
00:00:07 11.00 0.58 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.g4 Bd6 4.Rb3 b4
5.g5 Rf8 6.gxh6 gxh6 7.Bg4 (6)
00:00:18 12.00 0.61 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.g4 Bd6 4.Rb3 b4
5.g5 hxg5 6.hxg5 Rh8 7.g6 Kf6 (13)
00:00:45 13.00 0.61 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.Bg4 Bd6 4.Rb3
b4 5.h5 Kf6 (32)
00:02:06 14.00 0.64 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.Bg4 Bd6 4.Rb3
00:06:30 15.00 0.63 1..b4 2.Rxb4 b5 3.Kf2 Bd6 4.Rb3
b4 5.Kg2 Ra8 6.Bg4 (237)
>Enrique
>
>> Christophe
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.