Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:56:48 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 08:51:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Saying 60 plies again and again does not impress me without seeing a 60 ply line. I also did not see a forced draw in the line Qe3 Qd6 Re8 Qd7 Re7 Qc6 and in this line white gives the bishop. I do not know if the line leads to a draw and I know that I did not read an analysis of this line by the GM's at that time probably because the GM's did not believe that wasting tempos can be a good idea(I also did not believe in it) The only thing that can be proved is that programs cannot see that white can win material after Qe3 and I believe that this is the reason that the score is only 0.xx. I do not believe that Deeper blue evaluated these positions as +2.xx and I believe that other programs that can see the 0.xx evaluation and the line Qe3 Qd6 Re8 Qd7 Re7 Qc6 simply can see deeper than deeper blue. 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.