Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:59:22 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 believe the 60 ply analysis is posted on Ed's web site. I have not looked at it in quite a while, but it was pretty comprehensively covered there the last time I looked at it. I didn't make up the 60 ply number... > >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. Roman was one of the first GM players that suggested that line. But after we went over it for a _long_ while everyone became convinced that white could not win that way either... but it is very hard to prove this and I don't think a program has a chance in hell of following that analysis from the point where it has to find Qe3 with a draw score... > >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 The analysis for DB is readily available. I have the log files if you can't find them anywhere. I don't remember what its analysis actually was, but we do have it...
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.