Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:47:56 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 12:53:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 01, 2001 at 12:37:09, José Carlos wrote: > >>On October 01, 2001 at 12:30:44, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 01, 2001 at 12:11:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 30, 2001 at 11:12:47, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 30, 2001 at 10:39:50, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 30, 2001 at 06:15:44, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 29, 2001 at 20:15:16, Gareth McCaughan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The point is not the move, but the eval. The program must >>>>>>>>> know white is winning: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [D]R4rk1/5pp1/5q1p/1p1Qp3/8/1B6/1PP2bPP/5K2 w - - 0 1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Qxf7+ and after the changes, the pawn ending is won. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Crafty 18.11, Athlon 1GHz, has +0.8 after 0.4 seconds (8 ply), >>>>>>>>rising to 0.93 after 11 seconds, 1.17 after 28 seconds, 1.36 >>>>>>>>after 6 minutes. It plays Qxf7+ at all depths. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>g >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't surprise me at all. Crafty is probably the best in the world >>>>>>>evaluatiing pawn endgames. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> José C. >>>>>> >>>>>>Anyway, the position "as is" is not perfect for a test because white will want >>>>>>to play Qxf7 even if doesn't understand the upcoming pawn endgame (because Qxf7 >>>>>>just win a pawn). >>>>> >>>>>No >>>>> >>>>>Junior7 prefers to force a draw by perpetual check and >>>>>cannot find Qxf7. >>>>> >>>>>If a program believes that black is better in the pawn endgame >>>>>then it is not going to find Qxf7. >>>> >>>>If a program believes black is better in that position after the trades, >>>>then it already has a serious endgame problem (lack of knowledge). Nothing >>>>else matters in such cases... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is very good is the idea, so I try to improve the >>>>>>original position in a way that the first move gives an idea that the program >>>>>>understand the endgame. >>>>>> >>>>>>[D]8/4k1p1/1p2B2p/4p3/8/4P2P/1PP1KbP1/8 b - - am Bxe3; >>>>>> >>>>>>Crafty 17.14 avoids Bxe3 in an instant without any problem even in my K6-II 400 >>>>>>mhz. How about other programs? The test is simple but I like it in the modified >>>>>>version because it tells me fi a program understand a couple of concepts. >>>>>>For instance, Gaviota wants to play Bxe3, So I know what to modify :-). >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>Miguel >>>>> >>>>>Deep Fritz also likes Bxe3 >>>>>New position >>>>>8/4k1p1/1p2B2p/4p3/8/4P2P/1PP1KbP1/8 b - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Analysis by Deep Fritz: >>>>> >>>>>1...Kxe6-- >>>>> ± (1.19) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Kxe6-- >>>>> ± (1.19) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3! >>>>> ² (0.44) Depth: 1/4 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3! >>>>> = (-0.13) Depth: 1/4 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 >>>>> = (-0.13) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Kd6 >>>>> = (-0.16) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bf5 Kf6 3.Be4 >>>>> = (-0.06) Depth: 4/7 00:00:00 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Kd6 3.c4 Bd4 >>>>> = (-0.06) Depth: 5/8 00:00:00 1kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Bc5 3.g3 g6 4.c4 >>>>> = (-0.03) Depth: 6/10 00:00:00 3kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Bc5 3.g3 g6 4.Be4 Kf6 >>>>> = (-0.03) Depth: 7/11 00:00:00 7kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Bc5 3.g3 g6 4.Be4 Kf6 5.c3 >>>>> = (0.00) Depth: 8/12 00:00:00 16kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bf5 Bc1 3.b4 Bb2 4.c4 Ba3 5.Be4 >>>>> = (0.03) Depth: 9/15 00:00:00 50kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bd5 Kd6 3.Be4 Bf4 4.b4 b5 5.Bd3 Kc6 6.c4 bxc4 >>>>> = (0.09) Depth: 10/15 00:00:00 99kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bf5 Bc1 3.b3 Bf4 4.Be4 Kd6 5.c4 Kc5 >>>>> = (0.09) Depth: 11/17 00:00:00 231kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Bf5 Bc1 3.b3 Bf4 4.Be4 Kd6 5.b4 h5 6.g4 hxg4 7.hxg4 >>>>> = (0.09) Depth: 12/19 00:00:01 483kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 h5 4.g4 g6 5.b4 h4 6.Ke4 g5 7.c5 >>>>> = (0.19) Depth: 13/21 00:00:02 1039kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 Kd6 4.Ke4 h5 5.h4 >>>>> = (0.25) Depth: 14/22 00:00:03 1611kN >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 Kd6 4.Ke4 Ke6 5.b3 h5 6.h4 >>>>> = (0.25) Depth: 15/23 00:00:06 3076kN, tb=1 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 Kd6 4.b4 Ke6 5.Ke4 >>>>> ² (0.41) Depth: 16/24 00:00:12 5395kN, tb=6 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 Kd6 4.b4 h5 5.g4 hxg4 6.hxg4 Kd7 7.Ke4 >>>>> ² (0.50) Depth: 17/25 00:00:25 11346kN, tb=50 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 Kd6 4.b4 h5 5.Ke4 Ke6 6.h4 Kd6 7.c5+ >>>>> ² (0.56) Depth: 18/27 00:00:47 21088kN, tb=198 >>>>>1...Bxe3 2.Kxe3 Kxe6 3.c4 h5 4.h4 Kf5 5.b4 Ke6 6.Ke4 Kf6 7.c5 >>>>> ² (0.59) Depth: 19/30 00:01:54 49750kN, tb=993 >>>>> >>>>>(Blass, Tel-aviv 30.09.2001) >>>>> >>>>>Note that finding Kxe3 is also not an easy problem >>>>>for part of the programs >>>>> >>>>>Deep Fritz has no problem but Junior7 cannot find it >>>>> >>>>>I remember that I told Amir Ban some years ago about >>>>>pawn endgames problems and he told me that it is not important >>>>>because Junior almost never does not get pawn endgames >>>>>so it is more important for him to work about other problems >>>>>in the evaluation. >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>>Funny comment. Which will change after playing a lot of GM players. :) >>> >>>I am not sure about it. >>> >>>I remmeber that Junior4.9 drew against 3 GM's at tournament time control >>>at that time(1998 if I remember correctly). >>> >>>No game was pawn endgame at that time >>> >>>I also do not remember pawn endgames from the tournament in durtmond when Junior >>>got 4.5 out of 9 against GM's so I doubt if GM's can practically often take >>>advantage of the weakness of Junior. >>> >>>I did not watch GM's play against Junior in ICC but having a weakness does not >>>mean that the GM's can often take advantage of it and the only proof is in games >>>against Junior and not games against Crafty. >>> >>>Uri >> >> I believe Bob didn't mean 3 or 9 games, but hundreds. Let Junior play a lot of >>games against GM's at ICC and, if it still has that weakness, they'll sure >>discover it and win game after game. In 12 games against different players, the >>cannot discover such a weakness, so it's not relevant. >> >> José C. > >I read that Slater claimed that Junior is good against humans >See http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?191120 > >It seems that it is not simple to take advantage of Junior's weaknesses. > >The GM's who played against Junior also could train at home against the >commercial Junior,so the claim that they could not discover the weakness does >not convince me. > >Uri And the GM's who played against Junior could also play a computer for the first time in their lives. Both your and my statements are speculations. The _facts_ are: 12 games against different opponents. Nothing more that I know (if you know more facts, please tell us). With _those facts_, you cannot conclude that the GM's did discover the weakness but failed to take advantage of it. Again, let a program with such weakness play hundreds of games against GM's on ICC and you'll have facts. José C.
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.