Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:38:36 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2001 at 01:30:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 02, 2001 at 00:49:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 01, 2001 at 23:50:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 01, 2001 at 18:43:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 01, 2001 at 17:38:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 01, 2001 at 17:34:19, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 01, 2001 at 16:50:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 01, 2001 at 16:20:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 01, 2001 at 15:06:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 01, 2001 at 14:28:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>No but most of the endgames are not pawn endgames. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I do not say that I never saw Junior play endgames. >>>>>>>>>>I say that I never saw it plays pawn endgames against humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is not enough to get an endgame in order to take advantage of Junior's >>>>>>>>>>weaknesses in some kind of pawn endgames and GM's need also to get into >>>>>>>>>>positions when pawn endgames that Junior does not understand are relevant in the >>>>>>>>>>search. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Amir also did not say that endgames are not important and that he has nothing to >>>>>>>>>>fix in endgames and he talked about pawn endgames. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I remember that Junior got endgames that are not pawn endgames in at least one >>>>>>>>>>of it's tournament game against humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It was an endgame when both sides had knights and trading for pawn endgames was >>>>>>>>>>not relevant in that case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That is the critical case to handle however. Suppose it is a pawn down. And >>>>>>>>>it finds a way to trade knights and win that pawn back. And it ends up in a >>>>>>>>>dead lost pawn ending because of the opponent's distant majority... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If you don't know a lot about king and pawn endings, you had better _not_ get >>>>>>>>>into king and pawn + 1 minor piece endings. It is _all_ about king and pawns >>>>>>>>>there... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It depends on the endgame and there are cases when pawn endgames with distant >>>>>>>>pawn majority are not relevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I remember that in that game Junior was a pawn up and pawn endgame was simply >>>>>>>>not relevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Junior drew the game but not because of not evaluating correctly pawn endgame >>>>>>>>but because it overestimated it's two connected pawns(I remember a position of >>>>>>>>KNPP vs KNP from that game and the opponent could sacrifice it's pawn and >>>>>>>>capture Junior's pawns because the king of Junior was at long distance from the >>>>>>>>pawns to defend them). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wait. You are arguing with yourself here. First you said "not because of not >>>>>>>evaluating correctly pawn endgames" and then follow that up with "it >>>>>>>overestimated...". That is _exactly_ the point. That is an incorrect >>>>>>>evaluation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir did not say that there were no problem in evaluation in the endgame and the >>>>>>point is that the practical problem was not pawn endgames. >>>>>> >>>>>>I did not say that he did not care about endgames but that he did not care about >>>>>>pawn endgames and thought that there are more important things to improve. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Doesn't the game you posted sort of invalidate that statement??? >>>> >>>>I posted a position and the problem in the game was that the evaluation of a >>>>similiar endgame position was not correct. >>>> >>>>The problem was not wrong evaluation of pawn endgame because pawn endgame means >>>>that there are no knights in the board. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>In a position where you have one knight per side, the search will encounter >>>and have to evaluate a _huge_ number of pawn endgames. Because two plies >>>is enough to eliminate the two knights. So the program _will_ have to >>>be able to correctly evaluate pawn endings, or it will trade the knights to >>>win a pawn and lose the ending... >> >>it depends on the position on the board and in that case wrong evaluation of >>pawn endgame was not relevant. >> >>Junior does not evaluate wrong every pawn endgame and even when it evaluates >>pawn endgames wrong it does not mean always that it is going to do a mistake. >> >>Uri > >Um, exactly when did Amir (allegedly) say this anyway? I've been following this >discussion, but for all I know this was said when Junior 4.6 was the latest >version, and the Junior team may have even changed their mind and worked on pawn >endings by now! Or is this a comment made just a couple of months ago or >something? > >Dave I heard it in 1998 when the commercial version was Junior4.6 and Junior4.9 was the program that was playing. It is possible that Amir changed his mind about it I do not know but I know that Junior7 had problems in evaluating the relevent pawn endgame so it cannot find the right move in the position that started this discussion. 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.