Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:14:24 10/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2001 at 01:38:36, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Which means that it would lose half a point if it was playing that game (the position came from a real game), so pawn endings knowledge _is_ important to results... :) José C. >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.