Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 12:58:55 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 11:44:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 10:31:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 18, 2001 at 09:40:26, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >> >>>First the game: >>> >>>[Event "TCh-YUG Herceg Novi YUG"] >>>[Site "?"] >>>[Date "2001.??.??"] >>>[Round "?"] >>>[White "Vukic,M"] >>>[Black "Marinkovic,I"] >>>[WhiteElo "2470"] >>>[BlackElo "2440"] >>>[ECO "A30"] >>>[Result "1-0"] >>> >>>1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b6 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O g6 5. c4 c5 6. Nc3 >>>Bg7 7. d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 d6 9. Be3 Nbd7 10. Rac1 Rc8 11. b3 >>>O-O 12. Qd2 Nc5 13. Rfd1 Nce4 14. Nxe4 Nxe4 15. Qe1 Qd7 >>>16. Nd4 Nf6 17. Nf3 Ne4 18. Qb4 Nc3 19. Rd2 Ne4 20. Rd3 Nc5 >>>21. Rdd1 Rfd8 22. Ne1 h5 23. Bxc5 Rxc5 24. Nd3 Bxg2 >>>25. Kxg2 Qb7+ 26. f3 Rc7 27. Nf2 Rdc8 28. Qd2 b5 29. cxb5 >>>Qxb5 30. Kf1 Bc3 31. Qd3 Qa5 32. Rc2 Bf6 33. Rdc1 Rxc2 >>>34. Rxc2 Rxc2 35. Qxc2 d5 36. e3 Kg7 37. Nd3 e6 38. Ke2 Qa3 >>>39. f4 Kg8 40. h3 Kg7 41. Kf3 Qd6 42. g4 hxg4+ 43. hxg4 e5 >>>44. fxe5 Bxe5 45. Nxe5 Qxe5 46. Qc5 Qf6+ 47. Kg3 Qe5+ >>>48. Kh3 a6 49. Qd4 Kf6 50. b4 Ke6 51. a4 Qc7 52. g5 Qc2 >>>53. Qf6+ Kd7 54. Qxf7+ Kd6 55. Qf6+ Kd7 56. Qd4 Ke6 57. Kg3 >>>Qb1 58. Qb6+ Ke7 59. Qb7+ Kf8 60. Qxd5 Qxb4 61. Qd8+ Kg7 >>>62. Qd4+ 1-0 >>> >>>Position after move 61. Kg7: >>> >>>[D]3Q4/6k1/p5p1/6P1/Pq6/4P1K1/8/8 w - - >>> >>>After 62. Qf6+ is the win not easy. But after 62. Qd4+ is the game easy to win, >>>and the game end! For any programs ist the move Qd4+ not easy to find. >>> >>>:-( >>> >>>S532 finds the move with TBs after 58 seconds on P600: >>> >>>Analysis by Shredder 5.32: >>> >>> >>>1.Df6+ Kh7 2.Dxa6 De1+ 3.Kg4 Dg1+ 4.Kf4 Dh2+ 5.Ke4 Dg2+ 6.Kd4 Dxg5 7.Db7+ Kh8 >>> +- (2.33) Tiefe: 11/22 00:00:44 7096kN, tb=6535 >>>1.Dd7+ Kg8 2.De6+ Kh7 3.Dxa6 De1+ 4.Kg4 Dg1+ 5.Kf4 Dh2+ 6.Ke4 Dg2+ 7.Kd4 Dxg5 >>>8.Db7+ Kh8 >>> +- (2.34) Tiefe: 11/22 00:00:46 7474kN, tb=6990 >>>1.Dd7+ Kg8 2.De6+ Kh7 3.Dxa6 De1+ 4.Kg4 Dg1+ 5.Kf4 Dh2+ 6.Ke4 Dg2+ 7.Kd4 Dxg5 >>>8.Db7+ Kh8 >>> +- (2.34) Tiefe: 11/22 00:00:52 8440kN, tb=7665 >>>1.Dd4+ Dxd4 2.exd4 Kf7 3.Kf4 Ke6 4.Ke4 Kf7 >>> +- (2.35) Tiefe: 11/22 00:00:58 9490kN, tb=8444 >>>1.Dd4+ Dxd4 2.exd4 Kf7 3.Kf4 Ke6 4.Ke4 a5 5.d5+ Kd7 6.Ke5 Ke7 7.d6+ >>> +- (2.66) Tiefe: 11/22 00:00:58 9494kN, tb=8444 >>> >>> >>>For Tiger 14 is this not so easy: >>> >>>Analysis by Chess Tiger 14.0: >>> >>>1.Df6+ Kh7 2.Dxa6 De1+ 3.Kg2 Dxe3 4.Db7+ Kg8 5.Dc8+ Kf7 6.Dd7+ Kg8 7.Dd5+ Kg7 >>>8.a5 De2+ 9.Kg3 De1+ >>> +- (2.28) Tiefe: 15 00:03:00 37784kN, tb=595 >>>1.Dd4+ Dxd4 2.exd4 Kf7 3.d5 Ke7 4.Kf4 Kd6 5.Ke4 a5 6.Kd4 Ke7 7.Ke5 Kf7 8.d6 Ke8 >>>9.Kf6 >>> +- (2.36) Tiefe: 15 00:03:31 44143kN, tb=712 >>>1.Dd4+ >>> +- (3.26) Tiefe: 16 00:03:52 48366kN, tb=955 >>> >>>Eduard >> >> >>This is more about specific knowledge than speed. On a 600mhz laptop, I get >>this: >> >> (2) 11 12.57 1.86 1. Qf6+ Kh7 2. Qxa6 Qe1+ 3. Kg2 Qxe3 >> 4. Qb7+ Kh8 5. Qb8+ Kg7 6. Qc7+ Kg8 >> 7. Qc8+ Kf7 8. Qd7+ Kg8 9. Qd5+ Kg7 >> 10. a5 >> 11 19.60 1.99 1. Qd4+ Qxd4 2. exd4 Kf7 3. d5 Ke7 >> 4. Kf4 Kd6 5. Ke4 a5 6. Kd4 Kd7 7. >> Ke5 >> (4) 11-> 19.62 1.99 1. Qd4+ Qxd4 2. exd4 Kf7 3. d5 Ke7 >> 4. Kf4 Kd6 5. Ke4 a5 6. Kd4 Kd7 7. >> Ke5 >> (3) 12 19.64 2.05 1. Qd4+ Qxd4 2. exd4 Kf7 3. Kf4 Ke6 >> 4. Ke4 Kd6 5. a5 Ke6 6. d5+ Kd6 7. >> Kd4 Kd7 8. Ke5 >> >> >>etc... > >It may be about search rules and not only about evaluation. > >I know that programs have often problem in the transition to pawn endgames. > >If you give them the position after 1.Qd4+ Qxd4 2.exd4 they are going to see >that white wins with no problem but if you give them the root position they are >going to see nothing and the reason is simply bad search rules. > >If the remaining depth after 1.Qd4+ Qxd4 2.exd4 is x plies by normal rules then >it should be bigger than x for example x*3/2 because the position after 2.exd4 >is the starting position of a pawn endgame. I do something similar in Gaviota. I extend in the transition to a pawn endgame. This is something that can be tuned, though. Despite that Gaviota has NO knowledge of pawn endgames (yet) it finds Qd4+ in 160 s in a PIII 700 mhz. Not great at all, but not so bad compared to the commercials posted here. Anyway, 160 s is a shame. Any human would play that in a fraction of a second and later think. Regards, Miguel > >I do not know if 3/2 is the best number and it is possible to try other >functions of x but basically they should search pawn endgame deeper because the >time that they need to get the same depth is smaller. > >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.