Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:46:37 02/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2001 at 10:54:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 28, 2001 at 09:57:06, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On February 28, 2001 at 07:21:44, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2001 at 13:35:33, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On February 27, 2001 at 10:49:29, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 27, 2001 at 10:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 27, 2001 at 08:24:14, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that the drawish move was Qe3! instead of the Qxc6? Can somebody >>>>>>>post the FEN string that produce the graphical position for me. Plus I wonder >>>>>>>what program save the draw in the shortest time possible? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>None can see this. It is a 60+ ply repetition. Way beyond anything we can >>>>>>see today. >>>>> >>>>>We need to test all the programs in order to say that none can see it. >>>>> >>>>>Some programs like dark thought are not available so we cannot know that none >>>>>can see it. >>>>> >>>>>The fact that it is 60 ply repetition is not a proof that none can see it >>>>>because programs only to need the right extensions to see the relevant 60 plies >>>>>forward. >>>>> >>>>>If you are wrong then testing only one program is enough to prove it. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz doesn't see the draw yet after one hour, but it's getting there. Now >>>>I am trying with Deep Shredder and I might leave one of them computing the >>>>position overnight. >>>> >>>>What has been the evaluation that came closest to 0.00? >>>> >>>>Enrique >>>> >>>>Comp Deep Blue - Kasparov,G >>>>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>Analysis by DEEP FRITZ : >>>> >>><SNIP> >>>>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 >>>> ± (1.00) Depth: 19/50 00:25:38 1907813kN >>>>45...Qe3! >>>> ² (0.69) Depth: 20/52 00:56:36 4195172kN >>>> >>>>(Irazoqui, Cadaqués 27.02.2001) >>> >>>I have let various versions of Crafty search this position for very long periods >>>of time in the past. I've had it return what looks like a draw score at around >>>ply 21 or so, and then at the next ply the score will go back up and the line >>>will change a lot! I never could figure out why this was. >>> >>>BTW, there is a good line posted at the bottom of http://www.rebel.nl/db2.htm >>>for this position. It looks like Fritz is following it fairly well so far, but >>>Crafty also looked to be following it when it found the drawscore, then it >>>changed its mind away from the line, and again the score started to rise. :( >> >>Same thing with Deep Fritz. What I find surprising is that Deep Blue expected >>46... Qxc6, when Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder beta and Junior 7 beta, for instance, >>pick Qe3 very quickly. >> >>Enrique >> >> >>Comp Deep Blue - Kasparov,G >>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by DEEP FRITZ : >> >>45...Qxc6 >> ± (0.91) Depth: 1/6 00:00:00 >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Be7 47.Bd5+ Ke8 48.c7 Rc8 49.Ra7 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 10kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke7 49.Rxb5 >> ± (1.37) Depth: 7/16 00:00:00 31kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke7 49.Ke2 Kd6 50.Rxb5 >> +- (1.44) Depth: 8/17 00:00:00 65kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Bc7 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ke7 49.Ke2 Kd6 50.Rxb5 >> +- (1.44) Depth: 9/19 00:00:00 115kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Ra8 49.Rxb5 Ra3 50.Rd5 Ke7 >> +- (1.53) Depth: 10/22 00:00:00 305kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Rc7 49.Rxb5 Ke7 >> +- (1.56) Depth: 11/21 00:00:00 1078kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Kf8 47.Ra7 Rc8 48.Rb7 Rc7 49.Rxb5 Ke7 >> +- (1.56) Depth: 12/22 00:00:01 1597kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Rc8 47.Ra5 Ke7 48.Rxb5 h5 49.Bd5 Rb8 50.Rxb8 Bxb8 >> +- (1.78) Depth: 13/26 00:00:02 3199kN >>45...Qxc6 46.dxc6 Rc8 47.Ra5 h5 48.Rxb5 h4 49.Rb7+ Rc7 50.Bd5+ Ke7 51.Bxc4 >> +- (1.84) Depth: 14/26 00:00:06 6898kN >>45...Qe3! >> +- (1.81) Depth: 14/39 00:00:21 25200kN >>45...Qe3! 46.Qd7+ Kg8 47.Qxd6 Rf8 48.Qe6+ Kh7 49.Qe7 Rg8 50.Bf3 Qc1+ 51.Kf2 >> ± (1.22) Depth: 14/39 00:00:29 34959kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 Re7 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Kg3 Qe1+ 51.Kh3 >> ± (1.16) Depth: 15/39 00:00:58 71272kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 >> ± (1.28) Depth: 16/43 00:01:48 133552kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Bf3 >> ± (1.28) Depth: 17/45 00:04:03 301257kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Bf3 >> ± (1.28) Depth: 18/46 00:09:44 723368kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 >> ± (1.06) Depth: 19/50 00:22:41 1678502kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 >> ± (1.00) Depth: 20/49 01:04:45 4818191kN >>45...Qe3! >> ² (0.69) Depth: 21/54 02:32:36 11295715kN >>45...Qe3! 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 >> ² (0.31) Depth: 21/54 04:29:02 19961605kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.Qd7+ Re7 48.Qc6 Qxe4 49.d6 Qxf5+ 50.Kg1 Rd7 51.Qxb5 >> ² (0.31) Depth: 22/57 09:15:31 41587594kN >>45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.Qd7+ Re7 48.Qc6 Qxe4 49.d6 Qxf5+ 50.Kg1 Rd7 51.Qxb5 >> ² (0.47) Depth: 23/56 17:29:25 78776519kN, tb=3 >> >>(Irazoqui, Cadaqués 28.02.2001) > >Compare to the analysis of yace after few hours of playing against itself and >going back. > >1...Qe3 2.Qxd6 Re8 3.Qd7+ Re7 4.Qc6 Qxe4 5.d6 Qd3+ 6.Kg1 Re8 7.Kh2 Qxf5 8.Ra2 >Rd8 9.Qxb5 Rxd6 10.Qxc4+ Kg6 11.Ra7 Kh7 > >It seems that the lines are similiar and I suspect that humans did not analyze >this line to prove if it is a draw or not a draw. > >I did not believe that this traingle Qc6-d6-d7-c6 can be a good idea for white >but maybe humans are wrong and it is not a draw. > >It is clear that deeper blue could not find this idea otherwise the programmer >could tell the public that it is not a draw so practically kasparov could draw >by playing Qe3 but it does not answer the question if Qe3 is objectively a draw. > >Uri OK, fine, but obviously Qe3 is the only chance for black and Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder and Junior 7 beta see it very quickly. If Deep Blue was so extremely fast, why did it expect Qxc6 and didn't see Qe3? Enrique
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.