Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:59:25 01/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
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. Sorry i hope to get IM real soon (year or 2), but i was amazed it lost for white. With king on g2 white has a very simple win here. The whole problem here is a tactical problem as you win a tempo with black because of the promotion check by black. So in short this problem is not very valid, it's just a lucky shot that black wins. At first sight i might have traded too. If i would play a 40 in 2 game for sure i would not trade as i would see for sure that qe6 doesn't walk as fast because of the check. When i saw the post that black wins in this position after qe6 i directly realized the check was the problem and *not* the rest of the board. So in short it's just a lucky shot of black which proves why playing on safe like i do as a human is always winning quite chanceless in positions like this. If i would have had white then my king WOULD have been on g2, i can assure you that :) >> >>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
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.