Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:28:49 03/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 15:59:22, Robert Hyatt 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 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 cannot find the 60 plies at Ed's site. The link that Ed posted with the quiet move Qc1 gives only a line with 36 plies. Uri > > > >> >>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... I also have the logfiles and it did not expect Qe3 so I cannot know it's evaluation for lines after Qe3. 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.