Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:17:37 02/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2001 at 17:04:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 28, 2001 at 14:13:56, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 28, 2001 at 13:41:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2001 at 12:19:42, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 28, 2001 at 11:46:37, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>>I believe that the answer is simply one of the following or both of them: >>>> >>>>1)Deeper blue is worse than Deep Fritz and could not see the perpetual because >>>>it did not do the right extensions(the main line of Deep Fritz suggests that >>>>Deep Fritz can see the perpetual after many hours so it has a main line that >>>>avoids it) >>> >>>This is totally flawed reasoning. For a program to see a perpetual in its >>>search, it must meet two conditions. The conditions are summed up in the >>>following possibilities: >>> >>>1. It finds a perpetual it can force, regardless of what the opponent does, >>>and it believes that it is losing unless it takes the perpetual. >>> >>>2. If finds a perpetual the opponent can force, regardless of what it does >>>itself, and it believes that the opponent is losing and will choose to take >>>the perpetual. >> >>I believe that Deep Fritz found that the line Qe3 Qxd6 Re8 h4 is not good >>because black can force a perpetual check after h4 >> >>I believe that this is the reason that it changed it's ,mind at depth 22/57 to >>the line Qe3 Qxd6 Re8 Qd7+ >> > >I take a different view. I believe that Fritz simply doesn't like the white >position, and it thinks that black can do no better than repeat, and white >_wants_ to repeat. In reality, white is better and the perpetual is black's >only hope. If a program doesn't think white will try very hard to avoid the >draw, then it might find a draw much easier. But it isn't going to see the >draw that is 60+ plies deep, ever. > >And white can push the draw off that far with best resistance. > > > > >>I am not sure if the depth 22/57 mean that the longest line is 57 plies and it >>is possible that there is a display bug(assuming that you need 60 plies to see >>the repetition and 57 is not enough). >> >>Another possibility is that hash tables helped Fritz to see it in less plies. >>It is possible that it found a draw in 57 plies in line A and line B that is 61 >>plies leaded to one of the positions from line A so it did not need to search >>all the line. >> >>> >>>If a program believes white is losing in this position, then it will think white >>>is trying to repeat and black is not. >>> >>>If a program believes black is losing in this position, then it will think black >>>is trying to repeat and white is not. >>> >>>Those two cases are vastly different. If DB believed (1) and Fritz believes (2) >>>then comparing their results of looking for a draw is pointless. >>> >>>In any case, the forced (absolutely forced by black with white struggling to >>>avoid the repetition) requires > 60 plies to see. I don't care _how_ long you >>>give fritz, it is _not_ going to be able to find the forced draw. It is simply >>>too deep. >> >>Deep Fritz display depth 22/57 plies after 9:15:31 so depth>60 does not seem >>impossible. >> >>Uri > >I max out on that position at depth=64. But that happens on a very few >branches. To find the forced repetition, it is going to happen on _many_ >branches, which pushes the search time limit required into at least months >and probably years... Can you show the 64 plies? 45... Qe3! 46.Qxd6 Re8! 47.h4? h5! 48.Bf3 Qc1+ 49.Kf2 Qd2+ 50.Be2 Qf4+ 51.Kg1 Qe3+ 52.Kh2 Qf4+ 53.Kh3 Qxf5+ 54.Kh2 Qf4+ 55.Kg1 Qe3+ 56.Kf1 Qc1+ 57.Kf2 Qf4+ Are these the first 25 plies? If they are then I am interested in the last 39 plies. If they are not what is the wrong move except 47.h4 when after 47.Qd7+ programs cannot prove a repetition? 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.