Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:50:26 03/03/01
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... My maximum search depth during this game is around 100 plies at both processors. In openings position i see already several 60 ply lines :) Of course majority is completely nonsense of those lines, but it *does* cover checking lines. It's obvious that you need to see certain tactics and checks to get a near to draw score. With little extensions i evaluate Qxc6 highest for sure. Only adding extensions DIEP is giving Qxe3 a low score, as there are a few crucial draws to see in the lines! >>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... Perhaps Roman missed a shorter side line. But again, i can't rule out DIEP *did* checkout some 60+ lines to get the draw score. Any depth limitation on the extensions and it already doesn't find it! I'll try tonight to limit the total search depth to 32 plies. then 40 plies. So only applying evaluation then (not a qsearch as i can see perpetual lines of 32 plies easily in qsearch too) > > > >> >>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.