Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:59:43 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 09:56:48, Uri Blass wrote:
>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
What is your answer to the analysis posted below in response to your earlier
thread?
Albert
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.