Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:44:27 07/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2001 at 01:28:54, odell hall wrote: >On July 13, 2001 at 00:20:46, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 12, 2001 at 23:41:08, odell hall wrote: >> >>>On July 12, 2001 at 23:26:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On July 12, 2001 at 22:33:51, odell hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>Who says computers have the positional understanding of a 2100??? In the game >>>>>Junior 7 finds the Novelty played by Anand 11...Be7!! at about 1 min at depth >>>>>15 on my Thunderbird 1000, previous moves which has been played in this position >>>>>are 11...nf6, bb7, h6. I tested a few other programs, (fritz, gambit tiger) >>>>>they were unable to find the move. I am not 100% sure it is the best, but if >>>>>Anand plays it, there has to definitely be something to it. Listening to the >>>>>commentary I notice no one expected this move. How stupid can computers be to >>>>>find a purely positional move that annand plays??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Morozevich,A - Anand,V >>>>[D]r1b1k2r/2qp1ppp/p3pn2/1p2n3/1b1BP3/1NN2P2/PPPQ2PP/2KR1B1R b kq - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Analysis by Junior 7: >>>>> >>>>>11...h5 12.Qg5 >>>>> ² (0.36) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >>>>>11...Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Bxc3 >>>>> = (0.21) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN >>>>>11...Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Bxc3 >>>>> = (0.21) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN >>>>>11...Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Bxc3 >>>>> = (0.21) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN >>>>>11...Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Bb7 >>>>> ± (0.74) Depth: 9 00:00:00 56kN >>>>>11...h6 12.a3 Be7 13.f4 Nc4 14.Qf2 Bb7 >>>>> = (0.17) Depth: 9 00:00:00 88kN >>>>>11...h6 12.a3 Bd6 13.Be3 Be7 14.Bf4 b4 15.axb4 Bxb4 16.Be2 >>>>> = (0.16) Depth: 12 00:00:01 698kN >>>>>11...0-0 12.a3 Bd6 13.Be3 Be7 14.Bf4 b4 15.axb4 Bxb4 16.Be2 Bxc3 >>>>> = (0.08) Depth: 12 00:00:04 2991kN >>>>>11...0-0 12.a3 Bd6 13.Bxb5 Bb7 14.Bf2 Bxa3 15.bxa3 Rfc8 16.Bc5 axb5 17.Nxb5 Qb8 >>>>> ² (0.39) Depth: 15 00:00:17 12443kN >>>>>11...h6 12.a3 Bd6 13.Bb6 Qxb6 14.Qxd6 Qxd6 15.Rxd6 Ke7 16.Rd1 Nc6 17.Be2 >>>>> = (0.16) Depth: 15 00:00:24 17059kN >>>>>11...Be7 12.Qf2 b4 13.Na4 d6 14.Nb6 Rb8 15.Nxc8 Qxc8 16.Be3 d5 >>>>> = (0.02) Depth: 15 00:01:05 46644kN >>>> >>>>Look at the score, it is 0.02. Not exactly a ringing endorsement... >>>> >>>>>(hall, denver 12.07.2001) >>>> >>>>Here's crafty's take: >>>>EPD Kit revision date: 1996.04.21 >>>>unable to open book file [e:\crafty\release/books.bin]. >>>>hash table memory = 192M bytes. >>>>pawn hash table memory = 80M bytes. >>>>EGTB cache memory = 32M bytes. >>>>draw score set to 0.00 pawns. >>>>choose from book moves randomly (using weights.) >>>>choose from 5 best moves. >>>>book learning enabled >>>>result learning enabled >>>>position learning enabled >>>>threshold set to 9 pawns. >>>>5 piece tablebase files found >>>>19045kb of RAM used for TB indices and decompression tables >>>> >>>>Crafty v18.10 >>>> >>>>White(1): st 999 >>>>search time set to 999.00. >>>>White(1): setboard r1b1k2r/2qp1ppp/p3pn2/1p2n3/1b1BP3/1NN2P2/PPPQ2PP/2KR1B1R b >>>>kq - 0 1 >>>>Black(1): >>>> puzzling over a move to ponder. >>>> clearing hash tables >>>> nss depth time score variation (1) >>>>Black(1): O-O [pondering] >>>> clearing hash tables >>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 16:39 (16:39) >>>> nss depth time score variation (1) >>>>go >>>>Black(1): go >>>> clearing hash tables >>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 16:39 (16:39) >>>> nss depth time score variation (1) >>>> 6-> 0.37 0.61 1. ... O-O 2. a3 Be7 3. Qg5 Nc4 4. >>>> Kb1 >>>> 7 0.59 0.62 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 d6 3. a3 h6 4. Qe3 >>>> Bxc3 5. Qxc3 >>>> 7-> 0.92 0.62 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 d6 3. a3 h6 4. Qe3 >>>> Bxc3 5. Qxc3 >>>> 8 1.41 0.63 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 b4 4. >>>> Na4 Bb7 5. Nac5 >>>> 8-> 2.50 0.63 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 b4 4. >>>> Na4 Bb7 5. Nac5 >>>> 9 3.49 0.66 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 h6 4. >>>> Qe3 Bb7 5. f4 Nfg4 >>>> 9-> 5.42 0.66 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 h6 4. >>>> Qe3 Bb7 5. f4 Nfg4 >>>> 10 9.56 0.71 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 d6 3. a3 Bxc3 4. >>>> Bxc3 h6 5. Qf4 Bb7 6. Ba5 Qc6 >>>> 10 44.82 0.67 1. ... Ng6 2. Qe3 O-O 3. e5 Nh5 4. >>>> a3 Be7 5. Qe4 Bg5+ 6. Kb1 Bb7 >>>> 10-> 50.94 0.67 1. ... Ng6 2. Qe3 O-O 3. e5 Nh5 4. >>>> a3 Be7 5. Qe4 Bg5+ 6. Kb1 Bb7 >>>> 11 1:10 0.81 1. ... Ng6 2. Qe3 Bb7 3. a3 Bd6 4. >>>> g3 Be5 5. Bxe5 Nxe5 6. f4 Nc4 7. Qd4 >>>> 11 2:01 0.73 1. ... Be7 2. Qf2 Ng6 3. Bb6 Qe5 4. >>>> g3 b4 5. Bd4 Qb8 6. Na4 Qc7 >>>> 11 2:11 0.67 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 b4 4. >>>> Na4 h6 5. Qe3 Re8 6. f4 Nfg4 >>>> 11-> 2:21 0.67 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 b4 4. >>>> Na4 h6 5. Qe3 Re8 6. f4 Nfg4 >>>> 12 2:42 0.71 1. ... O-O 2. Qg5 Bd6 3. Kb1 h6 4. >>>> Qe3 Nc4 5. Qf2 e5 6. Bxc4 exd4 7. Bd5 >>>> 12 4:31 0.66 1. ... Be7 2. f4 Nc4 3. Bxc4 bxc4 4. >>>> Na1 O-O 5. Be5 Qc5 6. Bd6 Bxd6 7. Qxd6 >>>> Qe3+ 8. Qd2 Ng4 >>>> 12-> 5:49 0.66 1. ... Be7 2. f4 Nc4 3. Bxc4 bxc4 4. >>>> Na1 O-O 5. Be5 Qc5 6. Bd6 Bxd6 7. Qxd6 >>>> Qe3+ 8. Qd2 Ng4 >>>> 13 6:00 1/45* 1. ... Be7 >>>> >>>>Do the scores or trajectories show that either of these programs has GM >>>>positional understanding? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually the score for Junior 7 is pretty good, considering that Black's goal >>>in the opening is to equalize, to achieve this at only move 11.. is not bad, >>>obviously junior thinks be7 is the only equalizing move. I would be interested >>>to know why it chooses this particular move, i guess only amir can speak to this >>>fact however, or maybe we can ask Anand!! it obviously a very deep positional >>>ideal. >> >>We don't have to ask Amir anything. The program *told* us the reason why it >>chose the move: >>Be7 12.Qf2 b4 13.Na4 d6 14.Nb6 Rb8 15.Nxc8 Qxc8 16.Be3 d5 >>[D]1rq1k2r/4bppp/p3pn2/3pn3/1p2P3/1N2BP2/PPP2QPP/2KR1B1R w k - >> >>As you can see, the thinking was completely different from what actually went >>on. >> >>Crafty also had a very different line of reasoning. >> >>Here is the actual game: >>[Event "Sparkassen Cat XXI"] >>[Site "Dortmund GER"] >>[Date "2001.07.12"] >>[Round "1"] >>[White "Morozevich,A"] >>[Black "Anand,V"] >>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>[WhiteElo "2749"] >>[BlackElo "2794"] >>[EventDate "2001.07.12"] >>[ECO "B48"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 >>8. O-O-O Bb4 9. f3 Ne5 10. Nb3 b5 11. Bd4 Be7 12. Kb1 d6 13. Qf2 Rb8 14. g4 >>h6 15. h4 Nc4 16. Bxc4 bxc4 17. Nd2 e5 18. Ba7 Rb7 19. g5 Nh5 20. Nd5 Qc6 >>21. Nf1 Be6 22. Be3 Bxd5 23. exd5 Qb5 24. c3 Nf4 25. Bxf4 exf4 26. Rg1 O-O >>27. Rg2 Rfb8 28. Rd2 g6 29. Qd4 hxg5 30. Nh2 gxh4 31. Ng4 Bg5 32. Nf6+ Bxf6 >>33. Qxf6 Qb6 34. Rde2 Qd8 35. Qxf4 Re7 36. Qxh4 Rxe2 37. Qxd8+ Rxd8 38. >>Rxe2 Rc8 >>1/2-1/2 >> >>Now, don't get me wrong. Programs are not positional dummies -- some of them >>make some pretty smart moves from time to time, even positionally. But not >>consistently and deeply like a GM. Look at the NOLOT and LCT II problems that >>actually are positional and see how long your computer will ponder to solve >>them. > > > > Well i don't think i am qualified to say whatever or not the Computers >analysis was correct or the Grandmasters, i will have to wait until tommorow and >look at kasparov.com and see what the Expert analysis is, then we will see how >accurate the computer was, perhaps the Experts will say Morro went wrong and >should have followed the computer line. The problem with people making >critiqueS of the computers play, is that most of us are not qualified to make an >accurate assessment. I remember on several occasions people have stated that the >Computer move was stupid, or Odd, only to have a supergrandmaster comment that >it was the only move in the position!!. Two games come to Mind. Karpov vs Deep >thought and Kasparov vs Deepblue. Quite frankly, I don't trust any analysis -- that generated by a human or that generated by a computer -- unless it irrevokably and unequivocably leads to checkmate. That's because both humans and computers can be wrong. On the other hand, both a computer and a GM will probably come up with a much better move than I would. Rather than believing that "such-and-such is the best move in this position" I prefer to imagine it as "such-and-such is probably the best move in this position, especially under time pressure." An example is WAC 230. I think the book is still out on whether the solution is a sure, absolute solution. In any case, I definitely like the move because it has winning chances.
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.