Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:51:00 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 07:21:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 02, 2001 at 02:14:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 02, 2001 at 00:20:20, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2001 at 22:31:24, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>You should look below. Uri has shed some doubt on the draw. >>>> >>>> Albert >>> >>>It's a draw, nevermind. >> >>It was not a draw at least in the game between chessmaster8000 and itself >>see http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?156697 >> >>I did not see a forced line that lead to a draw and the position should be >>analyzed to prove if it is a draw or not a draw. >> >>Uri > >DIEP says it's a draw and i go for DIEP instead of a forward pruning >prog called The King, which probably played on a level similar to 5 0. >Did it play Qe3 at the first move anyway? > >Also Seirawan shows in june 1997 ICCA journal that it's a draw, besides >that i did some analysis myself in 1997 and then also concluded it >was a draw. > >So my friend, where your analysis usually are there before anyone >has said a word, here you argue lotta GMs and an objective chess prog >without anything, how comes? Sorry, but I don't believe you can find a forced draw here. There are way too many very deep but quiet moves that can be played. Including the option by white of simply giving up the bishop to get the passed pawn moving. A program might think that white is losing there. It takes one deep search to figure this out. Crafty gets a draw score at depth=16 for Qe3. But it then loses it at depth=17 when it realizes that one side can do better. 0.00 doesn't impress me at all here without the full 60+ ply variation for the deepest forced draw.
This page took 0.01 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.