Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: a test position from hiarcs-tiger

Author: Dieter Buerssner

Date: 06:02:35 09/27/00

Go up one level in this thread


On September 27, 2000 at 05:53:59, Uri Blass wrote:

>On September 27, 2000 at 04:21:52, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>
>>On September 26, 2000 at 16:51:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>[D]3r3k/p7/1p6/2p2Q1p/2P1R3/2P5/P2KP3/6q1 w - - 0 1
>>>
>>>Hiarcs played Kc2 and had to resign some moves later because the queen cannot be
>>>saved[the game continued Kc2 Qd1+ Kb2 Rd2+ Ka3 Qc1+ Ka4 b5+ cxb5 Qc2+ Ka5 Qxc3+
>>>and white resigned because of the line Ka6 Rd6+ Kb7 Qg7+ Kb8(forced because Kc8
>>>is leading to mate) Rd8+].
>>>
>>>How much time do programs need to avoid this tactical error?(some program like
>>>hiarcs can play Rd4 after a short time but later change their mind to Kc2 so the
>>>right test is to give them at least some minutes)
>>
>>Interesting position. I think, it is not unlikely for many engines to switch
>>moves here. It needs some relatively deep search to see that the queen is lost.
>>Before this, Yace sees tactical strong lines after Kc2, but in between, at just
>>one depth, they seem to be refuted.
>>
>>Yace needs 64 seconds on AMD K6-2 475 MHz, 30MB hash.
>>[...]
>>      8756 0.131  -1.43  4t : Re4d4 Rd8xd4+ c3xd4 Qg1xd4+ Kd2e1 Qd4c3+ Ke1f2
>>                              Qc3xc4 Qf5xh5+ Kh8g8 [-100]
>>[stays with Rd4 until]
>>   3464157 16.90  -0.66 10t : Re4d4 Rd8xd4+ c3xd4 Qg1xd4+ Kd2e1 Qd4h4+ Ke1f1
>>                              Qh4xc4 Qf5xh5+ Kh8g8 Qh5e8+ Kg8g7 Qe8e5+ Kg7g6
>>                              Qe5d6+ Kg6f5 Qd6d7+ Kf5e5 Qd7xa7 Qc4c1+ Kf1f2
>>                              b6b5 [0]
>>[...]
>>   9973064 53.77  -0.36 10t : Kd2c2 Qg1d1+ Kc2b2 Rd8d2+ Kb2a3 Qd1c1+ Ka3a4
>>                              b6b5+ c4xb5 Qc1c2+ Ka4a5 Qc2xc3+ Ka5a6 Rd2d6+
>>                              Ka6b7 Qc3g7+ Kb7c8 Qg7g8+ Kc8b7 Rd6b6+ Kb7c7H
>>                              Qg8b8+H Kc7d7H Rb6d6+H Kd7e7H <HT> [0]
>
>I do not understand the score of -0.36
>When I look in the final position of the pv even without searching deeper I
>evaluate it as a very big advantage for black.

I agree, that this is no good evaluation. But it may not be as bad as it looks.

>Reasons:
>1)The white king is in a very bad square and I am afraid from mate even before
>seeing it by search(it is a problem when the sides have queen and rook that is
>often enough to mate).

But almost the same is true for the black king. With white to move, this is a
mate in 3. But of course ...

>2)black is the attacker(it is black to move and black is not in check)
>I define the attacker as the side to move unless the side to move is in check.

when the eval takes this into account, things are different. I hope, that the
search or search extensions would solve this problem. This may not be optimal
and I will think about the concept of side to move for this sort of eval terms.
Nevertheless, if I calculate extensions correctly, one ply deeper, the mate in
this line would be seen.

>It seems to me that a better piece square table with big positional scores can
>help to have a better evaluation.

Don't see this here. You want to punish the advanced king very much?

>I do not unsderstand the reason that a lot of programs evaluate the final
>position of the pv as almost equal.
>
>Here is the final position of the pv
>
>[D]1q5k/p3K3/3r4/1Pp2Q1p/4R3/8/P3P3/8 b - - 0 1
>
>evaluation of programs at depth 1:
>CometB20 1.61: pawns for black

This really is interesting. Perhaps Ulrich Türke can tell, if he looks at the
side to move for king safty.

>This kind of evaluations(except Comet) make me wonder if programmers think
>before writing the piece square tables because I expect more than one pawn bonus
>for king safety problems in this case and if you do not consider king safety
>then I also see positional advantage for black because black has 2 passed pawns
>when white has only one.

How much is one passed pawn (not connected) worth in an open position with
queens on board, where there are allways threats for perpetual checks?

>Are programmers afraid to have big bonuses of more than 1 pawn in the piece
>square tables?

Where would you put bonuses of more than one pawn in piece square tables
(besides perhaps pawns on rank 7)?



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.