Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 05:09:28 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 03:54:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 17, 2000 at 20:53:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 17, 2000 at 14:25:32, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2000 at 14:23:38, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On October 17, 2000 at 14:22:19, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 17, 2000 at 14:19:56, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 17, 2000 at 14:17:46, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rd7+ Re7 Qb3+ Kf8 Rd6 Nxe5 Qc3 b4 >>>>>>>depth 11 +3.18 >>>>>> >>>>>>WHAT??? No way (I hope). >>>>>> >>>>>>Kramnik,V - Kasparov,G >>>>>>8/5k1p/p1nRrp1P/PpP2qp1/4p3/4B3/1P3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1 >>>>>> >>>>>>Analysis by Deep Fritz T28: >>>>>> >>>>>>43.Rd7+ Kg6 44.Rg7+ Kxh6 45.Qd7 Re5 46.Rxh7+ Qxh7 47.Qxc6 Kg6 >>>>>> ² (0.44) Depth: 11/28 00:00:50 6786kN >>>>>> ² (0.50) Depth: 12/32 00:01:55 15933kN >>>>>> >>>>>>(Irazoqui, Cadaqués 17.10.2000) >>>>> >>>>>Still showing >>>>>Rd7+ Re7 Qb3+ kf8 Rd6 Nxa5 Qc3 b4 Qxf6+ etc >>>>> >>>>>Depth 13. +2.84 >>>>> >>>>>I'll check after Rd7+ Kg6 >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>>Added score. >>> >>>if Kg6 >>>Rg7+ Kxh6 Rc7 Qe5 QD7 Ne7 g4 Kg7 Bd4 Qxe6 Qxc7 Bxf6+ Kf8 >>>+3.88 Depth 12 >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >>That eval is too big. IE this is another example. I don't recall this >>exact position but white is either up 1 or 2 pawns (2 I think) but with >>lots of holes and a queen and knight to deal with. >> >>Most programs had this as +1 to +1.3 in this stage of the game. I became >>less and less optimistic for white as I watched, as the queen is simply a real >>pain, and the knight is the optimal piece to have working with the queen in a >>board with pawns moved everywhere. >> >>I wasn't surprised by the outcome, particularly. If programs say +2 or less, >>draws don't cause any speculation or bug-hunting... >> >>I think the krnp vs kr might have been easier to win than this game was. Of >>course, taking time to eat the a-pawn in this game might have cost white more >>than he thought... > >I suspect that the score of Krnp vs Kr of chess tiger is bigger so the fact that >it is more easy to win does not say that the evaluation is wrong. > >Chesstiger did not like kramnik's moves so the fact that the game was drawn does >not prove that the evaluation was wrong. > >The question is if chesstiger can win other programs. > >Uri In this particular case it seems that Gambit's evaluation was a mirage. I made it play after Gambit's choice of 47.Rc7, giving Gambit, white, and Deep Fritz beta, black, about 5 to 10 minutes/move each on 2 P600E, DF with 184MB hash, Gambit with 192MB hash: Gambit 47.Rc7, +3.62 DF 47... Ne7, +0.94 Gambit 48.Qd8, +4.38 DF 48... Nd5, +0.66 Gambit 49.Rb7 (why?), +4.28 DF 49... Nxe3, 0.00 Gambit 50.Qf8+, +1.83 (failing low) DF 50... Kh5, +0.19 Gambit 51.fxe3, +1.10 (lower) DF 51... Re5, +0.19 As seen by Gambit itself, the initial evaluations of this line were wrong. But I don't think that this is the right way to look at Gambit's evals, which in these cases are speculative. It is not so much a matter of being accurate, of seeing the whole line, but of making Gambit go for the attack, and more often than not it succeeds. Enrique
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.