Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:41:12 01/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2001 at 11:55:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 22, 2001 at 17:13:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 22, 2001 at 16:02:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2001 at 14:55:49, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>A tough position it seems . >>>> >>>>Although none of them is "mine" , a try : >>>> >>>>"Bringer" >>>> >>>>0:00:00.1 ( 4/12) 3891 4.87 f6-e6 d7-f7 f5-f6 >>>>0:00:00.2 ( 5/13) 17765 4.83 f6-e6 d7-f7 h2-h4 a5-a4 e6xf7 g8xf7 >>>>e5-e6 f7-e7 h4-h5 >>>>0:00:00.5 ( 6/15) 58783 4.72 f6-e6 d7-f7 h2-h4 a5-a4 e6xf7 g8xf7 >>>>e5-e6 f7-e7 >>>>0:00:00.7 ( 6/16) 86563 4.73 f6-g6 >>>>0:00:01.9 ( 7/18) 212939 4.72 f6-g6 g8-f8 g6-h6 f8-g8 h6-e6 >>>>0:00:05.1 ( 8/23) 645145 4.74 f6-g6 g8-f8 g6-h6 f8-g8 h6-e6 >>>>0:00:13.4 ( 9/27) 1869222 4.61 f6-g6 g8-f8 g6-h6 f8-g8 h6-e6 >>>>0:00:17.1 ( 9/27) 2428949 4.63 f6-e6 d7xe6 f5xe6 g8-f8 >>>>0:00:29.8 (10/30) 4346163 4.23 f6-e6 d7xe6 >>>>0:00:30.8 (10/30) 4559520 3.83 f6-e6 d7xe6 >>>>0:00:32.7 (10/30) 4871934 1.97 f6-e6 d7xe6 f5xe6 g8-f8 d5-d6 c7xd6 >>>>e5xd6 a5-a4 h1-g1 b4-b3 a2xb3 a4-a3 d6-d7 >>>>0:00:41.8 (10/30) 6179798 1.98 f6-g6 >>>>0:00:42.7 (10/30) 6346445 2.48 f6-g6 >>>>0:01:34.8 (10/36) 13206630 2.49 e5-e6 >>>>0:01:44.8 (10/36) 14944128 2.99 e5-e6 >>>>0:02:03.3 (10/36) 17506577 3.00 f6-g5 >>>>0:02:28.9 (10/36) 21440299 3.35 f6-g5 g8-f8 d5-d6 >>>>0:03:57.7 (11/36) 34278234 3.26 f6-g5 g8-f8 d5-d6 >>>> >>>>So , Bringer might be lucky and avoid it at fast blitz time control but needs 43 >>>>secs to avoid it for the right reasons it seems . >>>> >>>>In fact this position is a hard challenge for the commercials, too : >>>> >>>>"Century 3" >>>> >>>>00:00:24 11.00 10.63 1.De6+ Dxe6 2.fxe6 Kf8 3.d6 cxd6 >>>> 4.exd6 a4 5.d5 a3 6.d7 Ke7 7.h4 >>>> b3 8.d6 Kd8 (23) (0.00) >>>> >>>>00:00:50 12.00 8.02 1.De6+ Dxe6 2.fxe6 Kf8 3.d6 cxd6 >>>> 4.exd6 a4 5.d5 a3 6.d7 Ke7 7.h3 >>>> b3 8.d6 Kxe6 9.d8 (32) (0.00) >>>> >>>>00:03:00 13.00 0.44 1.De6+ Dxe6 2.fxe6 Kf8 3.Kg2 a4 >>>> 4.d6 (159) (0.00) >>>> >>>>No news after 15 minutes , so probably Rebel can't avoid it at tournament time >>>>control . >>>> >>>>Both tried on PIII500 . >>>> >>>>pete >>> >>> >>>The problem is endgame knowledge. A program _ought_ to know that if you have >>>a passer, then trade pieces to reach a won ending. Only in this case, that >>>heuristic back-fires as it is black who ends up winning. This is a _tough_ >>>exception to handle... >>> >>>although a GM would tell you instantly "No I won't trade queens..." >> >>IM's and FM's would also say it instantly. >> >>> >>>And no, there is no point in starting another "is the computer a GM?" >>>thread. So long as they can fall for these positions, the answer is pretty >>>obvious. >> >>No. >> >>By the same logic you could claim that they are also not IM's and not FM's. >> >>The only test is games and Rebel proved that it can win a match of 6 games >>against a GM so it seems to be better than part of the GM's inspite of some >>weaknesses. >> >>Uri > > >If you watch games on ICC, you will see that this is the _most_ common way >programs lose. The problem is that the case when programs win is even more common so it does not prove that programs are not gm's. I also suspect that at tournament time control the most common way that programs lose is a king attack against them because big part of the cases when program lose in pawn endgame can be solved by search(this example is a good example for Crafty when Crafty maybe does the mistake at blitz but will avoid the mistake at longer time control). Uri
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.