Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:39:15 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 12:59:43, Albert Silver wrote: >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 I did not analyze it to be sure if it is a draw. I do not say that it is not a draw but only that I am not sure. My guess is that it is a draw but programs did not prove it. It may be interesting if it is possible to convince yace to show 0.00 score by going backward and forward(0.00 does not prove that it is a draw but it supports the theory that it is a draw). I only could get 0.09 for white but maybe I did not use it enough and I have not time to do it now. 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.