Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 17:24:41 04/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2001 at 20:02:14, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >As you are aware of the fact I know nothing about chess programming, I wonder if >the following behaviour has something to do with the way a chess engine is >programmed. > >It's this position: >[D]8/kp6/4p3/p2p1p2/P1nP1P2/2PK2R1/7q/1Q6 w - - 0 1 > >This is the way I assessed the situation: >Black threatens mate at d2 in the next move. >White has to counter this by neutralizing the threat and simultaniously defend >its rook. So the most logical way is playing 1. Qe1 >I guess I'm thinking like a null-move searcher. > >So I asked Fritz 6 and it came up with the same solution until after some time >it found the escape route for white to a draw/stalemate, namely 1. Qxb7+ Kxb7 >2.Rg7+. > >My question is: did Fritz start off with pondering over Qe1 because it is a >"null-mover" or am I just talking nonsense and has this nothing to do with >programming techniques? It didn't choose Qe1 first because it's a null-mover. It doesn't do nullmoves at the root I assume... And even if it did somehow that wouldn't decide the first move to look at. If this had been a position in the search tree it would have thought (as a nullmover): "If I (white) don't do anything, can black still not get a good enough (according to some criterion) position? Oops, I got mated, I better find a move. Lets see, Rg4... no, Qa1... no, Qe1.. seems possible..." ...etc... > >The background is of course searching for or construction of positions like this >to fool real people and computer programs alike. > >Thanks for the (expert) advice. You didn't get any... :) Ralf > >J. > >btw the position comes from Murej-Pawlenko (Moscow 1961) and you can find it in >the "Chess Endgames" book from Laszlo Polgar (pos 894, p.171)
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.