Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:14:36 01/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2001 at 17:59:25, Vincent Diepeveen 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. > >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 :) > There is more to it than just handling checks. a program needs to realize that the b-pawn is a passer. And even more importantly, it is a passer that is too far from the king to be stopped if there are no pieces left. The thing that looks hard is that white has all those passers, and any decent program should know that passers get stronger as pieces come off the board. But they also have to know about candidate passers. As that is the deciding thing in this position. As a human I took about 5 seconds to realize that trading queens was NFG. Because of the black a/b pawns. There will come a time when my program, (at least) knows this just as well, but spots it in microseconds... Otherwise, this is just another hole to exploit. > > > >>> >>>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.