Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:01:47 03/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 1998 at 22:17:53, Howard Exner wrote:
>8/6p1/6k1/p7/2p5/r6P/P1RK2P1/8 w - - id"Fritz 5.0 - Rebel 9.0";
>
>This is a game from Kai Luebke's 40/2 tournament run on two P200's.
>Here Fritz played Rxc4 and the game continued with Rxa2+ Rc2, Rxc2.
>Of course this entire sequence for white is a terrible blunder. Could
>some of the programmers explain what is going on here. Are these
>positions still too difficult for computers when they are so simple for
>humans? Or is knowledge code required to solve these positions? Fritz
>being a deep searcher misses this so I'm guessing some sort of
>endgame knowledge is needed. Any explanations for Fritz's choice?
I ran this position on a few programs to see what they would.
I tested Rebel9, Rebel8, Rebel decade, Nimzo98, and Chessgenius5.
ChessGenius 5 did the best it would not even consider the move Rxc4. all
the Rebel programs did about the same. They liked Rxc4 for less then 5
secs. Nimzo98 was much slower it liked the move for 2 min. and 38 sec.
then it changed to d2e3.
So most of the program found the position very easy to solve. I would
not fault Fritz 5 to much in this position. Im sure there are other
endgame position that Fritz5 would find very easy to solve while the
other programs would need a deep search.
Mark
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.