Author: K. Burcham
Date: 00:36:46 12/22/01
in this game there was a big swing from a positive score of about five to a
losing score of a mate in 11 in the final position. i have had several questions
about this game since i found this out at that time. this game has been
discussed here before. this was not a blitz game. shredders score
gradually increased to the +5, and back to a mate in 11 with 80 moves. all this
made me curious. here are my questions about this game.
questions:
1. was there one or more blunders?
2. will some of the other top programs have this large eval swing?
4. how miscalculated was this plan by shredder to push its own two pawns?
5. can we find a key move in this game that will end in a draw?
6. will shredder duplicate the same eval, in an analysis?
7. one of the top programmers that post here, made this statement:
"well we know we cant trust shredders eval, so we should not
use this program to analyze games". i assumed he was basing
that comment on this game. so is his statement true?
8. did deep junior eval also swing, the same as shredder?
9. when did deep junior see the problem shredder was in?
10. does this game indicate that deep junior can see far ahead
of most programs?
now i am able to get some accurate answers. with dual 1533 and 1 gig ram,
i can run deep junior7. in the list below you will see i also used other
programs to compare. i tried to keep most depths from about 12 to 15.
deep junior was getting depths of 4 to 5 more than other programs.
sometimes the post would hang during analysis. but i think this info
is accurate. i started with move 21. shreddder was in book until about move 11.
deep junior also did not have 11...Rc8 in its book. it seems stefan
was using a different book than the commercial shredder5. maybe this was the
shredder5.32 book, not sure. at move 21 shredder eval was up about one pawn.
all scores are for white, deep junior7.
deep junior7, shredder5, chess tiger 14.0, deep shredder, crafty 18.08
21.Qh3 -.30 -1.25 -1.28 -.92 -.69
31.Na4 -1.25 -3.05 -2.04 -2.88 -.2.05
47.hxg4 -1.95 -4.08 -2.88 -4.25 -3.19
55.Kh3 -1.76 -4.92 -4.52 -4.95 -3.00
57.g5 -2.63 -5.37 -4.98 -5.40 -4.20
61.Kh4 -1.75 -5.58 -3.92 -5.40 -3.25
...a4 -1.08 -5.51 -3.62 -5.09 -3.00
62.f6 -.92 -3.60 -3.60 -3.95 -2.95
...Rb8 -.37 -2.00 -2.90 -2.80 -2.46
63.Bf3 .00 -.27 -1.38 .00 -2.44
...
64.g6 +.20 +.45 .00 +.37 +.19
...Rd8 +3.50 +2.33 +3.88 +5.50(Qc2) +4.36
66.Qc2 +4.00 +4.75 +4.08 +5.15 +2.47
69.Nxd5 +3.16 +7.06 +3.48 +5.40 +2.33
...Kf7 +5.75 +7.35 +6.85 +7.50 +6.62
71.Qf3 +6.10 +9.00 +10.85 +10.11 +8.44
80...Kb6 mate in 11 stefan resigns
with the above info all of my questions have been answered.
i am not saying that any of these programs would have played the same lines as
shredder to lead into this same game. but it is obvious that junior did not see
the win any sooner than the other programs. although dj eval was lower than
shredder considerably. shredder5 eval and large eval swing was a little more
than the others. but most programs evals were similiar. also at move 71
deep junior eval is still 3 points lower than others. so DJ7 eval is
conservative on both ends. it seems to me that deep junior had no idea
that it could promote and mate, before the other programs could see this.
but in this game deep junior played for the win, and was the victor.
i also studied some of the key moves in this game. after using ct14 and deep
shredder i found that on move 48...Bxf5, 49.exf5, the two pawns could now
advance forward for the queen. in the Maastricht game shredder did not see
this combination. instead if shredder had played 48...Nc2,
shredder wins. of course i know this was just one game. but dj was running
on 2x1533 and getting deep search. with this only one move change, shredder
wins. also slate and i tried another line with changing just one move in
this game and shredder had a draw with slate. slate if you read this,
i found another line that shredder could win.
here is the one move change, 48...Nc2 that shredder wins this game.
[Event "Maastrict 2001 with move 48...Nc2"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2001.12.22"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Junior"]
[Black "Shredder5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1r5k/2qb3p/3p3b/p3pN2/N3P1P1/2P1n1P1/6B1/R3Q2K b - -"]
1... Nc2 2. Qd1 Nxa1 3. Nxh6 Bxa4 4. Qxa4 Nb3 5. g5 Nc5 6. Qa2
Rf8 7. Qd5 a4 8. Nf5 a3 9. g4 Qd7 10. Qa2
Qa4 11. Kh2 Nxe4 12. c4 Rb8 13. c5 Qb3 14. Qe2
a2 15. Qa6 Qb2 16. Qa7 Rg8 17. g6 hxg6 18. Nh6
a1=Q 19. Qxa1 Qxa1 20. Nxg8 Nc3 21. Kh3 Ne2 22. Ne7 0-1
this is 48.Nf5
[D] 1r5k/2qb3p/3p3b/p3pN2/N3P1P1/2P1n1P1/6B1/R3Q2K b - -
here is the complete game.
[Event "WMCCC"]
[Site "Maastricht"]
[Date "2001.08.22"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Junior"]
[Black "Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3
e6 7. Be2 Qc7 8. f4 b5 9. a3 Bb7 10. Bf3 Nbd7 11. Nde2 Rc8
12. O-O Be7 13. Kh1 O-O 14. b4 Nb6 15. Qd3 Rfd8 16. f5 Nc4
17. fxe6 fxe6 18. Bd4 Rd7 19. Bxf6 Bxf6 20. Bg4 Re7 21. Qh3
Rce8 22. a4 bxa4 23. Bh5 Rf8 24. Bg4 Bc8 25. Rxa4 Ree8
26. Raa1 g6 27. Qg3 Qb6 28. Bh3 Qxb4 29. Qd3 Bg7 30. Rfb1
Qc5 31. Na4 Qc7 32. c3 Rf6 33. Nd4 Ref8 34. Nf3 Rf4 35. Nd4
Re8 36. Rf1 Rxf1+ 37. Rxf1 Bd7 38. Ra1 Kh8 39. Qf1 g5
40. Qd1 Ne5 41. g3 g4 42. Bg2 a5 43. Qc2 Rb8 44. Qc1 Nc4
45. Qe1 Bh6 46. h3 Ne3 47. hxg4 e5 48. Nf5 Bxf5 49. exf5
Nc2 50. Qd1 Nxa1 51. Qxa1 e4 52. Qd1 e3 53. Bf3 Bg7 54. Kg2
Re8 55. Kh3 Qc4 56. Be2 Qc6 57. g5 Be5 58. Nb2 d5 59. Nd3
Bxc3 60. Nf4 d4 61. Kh4 a4 62. f6 Rb8 63. Bf3 Qb5 64. g6
Rd8 65. g7+ Kg8 66. Qc2 Rd6 67. Qa2+ Qb3 68. Bd5+ Rxd5
69. Nxd5 Kf7 70. Qg2 d3 71. Qf3 Qb8 72. Qh5+ Ke6 73. Nxc3
e2 74. Qg4+ Kf7 75. Kg5 h6+ 76. Kxh6 e1=Q 77. Qg6+ Ke6
78. f7+ Kd7 79. Qxd3+ Kc7 80. Qc4+ Kb6 1-0
final position. stefan resigns with two queens on board. 80...Qb6
and mate in 11.
[D] 1q6/5PP1/1k5K/8/p1Q5/2N3P1/8/4q3 w - -
kburcham
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.