Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:46:53 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 08:09:28, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. I am not against gambittiger but I believe that it is the right way to look at gambit's evaluations. Christophe explained that he did not finish to tune gambit's evaluation and I believe that he is going to have better evaluation in the future. I guess that in this case slower time control can also help tiger to avoid 49.Rb7 because the score dropped one move after it. I see from the fact that tiger used 5-10 minutes per move that tournament time control is not slow ennough. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.