Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:40:54 01/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2002 at 11:26:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 02, 2002 at 11:19:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>[D]r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/8/PPP3P1/1K1R3R w - - bm Qd8+; >> >>It is WAC96 >> >>Qd8+ is a forced mate for white but b3 is also enough to win the game. >> >>I saw cases when stupid moves are considered as solutions for WAC only because >>they are winning so in this case b3 should be considered as an alternative >>solution: >> >>after b3 I gave yace to learn that Na3+ Kc1 is bad for black and it give the >>folllowing analysis: >>New position >>r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/1P6/P1P3P1/1K1R3R b - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Yace 0.99.56: >> >>1...Qxb3+ 2.axb3 >> +- (9.15) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...Nxe5 2.dxe5 >> +- (2.61) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...f3 2.gxf3 >> +- (1.57) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...Rb8 2.Bxd5 >> ± (1.34) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...Bf5 2.Bxd5 >> ± (1.12) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...c6 2.Qxf4 >> ± (1.04) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...Ne3 >> ² (0.26) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >>1...Ne3 2.Qd8+ Qf8 >> ² (0.48) Depth: 2 00:00:00 >>1...Ne3 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Qxf8+ Bxf8 4.Rdg1 >> = (0.07) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >>1...Ne3 2.Qxf4 Bxe5 3.Rxh6+ Kg7 4.Qxe5+ Kf8 >> ² (0.47) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Ne3 2.Qxf4 Nf5 3.Bxd5 >> +- (2.27) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Bf5 2.Bxd5 Bxc2+ 3.Kc1 >> +- (2.26) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Bf5 2.Qxf4 Bd7 3.Bxd5 >> +- (1.91) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...f3 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Qxf8+ Bxf8 4.bxc4 fxg2 5.Rdf1 >> +- (1.90) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...f3 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Qxf8+ Bxf8 4.bxc4 fxg2 5.Rhg1 >> +- (1.83) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Nb6 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Rde1 >> +- (1.82) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Nb6 2.Qxf4 Qf8 3.Rdf1 >> +- (1.76) Depth: 4 00:00:00 >>1...Nb6 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Qxc7 Bg4 4.Rdf1 >> +- (1.62) Depth: 5 00:00:00 49kN >>1...Nb6 2.Qd8+ Qf8 3.Qxc7 Bg4 4.Rdf1 Qc8 5.Qxc8+ Rxc8 6.Rxf4 >> +- (1.82) Depth: 6 00:00:00 129kN >>1...Qf8 2.Kc1 Bf5 3.Qg5 Qa3+ 4.Kb1 >> +- (1.81) Depth: 6 00:00:00 129kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Na3+ 3.Kc1 c6 4.Rdf1 Bd7 >> +- (1.41) Depth: 6 00:00:00 129kN >>1...Qf8 2.e6 Na3+ 3.Kc1 c6 4.e7 Bf5 5.exf8Q+ Bxf8 >> +- (1.81) Depth: 7 00:00:01 402kN >>1...Qf8 2.e6 Bxe6 3.Bxe6 Qa3 4.Qf6 Bxf6 5.bxc4 >> +- (1.81) Depth: 7 00:00:01 402kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Na3+ 3.Kc1 b6 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Bxd5 >> +- (1.49) Depth: 8 00:00:03 1176kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Na3+ 3.Kb2 Bd7 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Rh1 Qxf7 6.gxf7 Kg7 7.f8Q+ Rxf8 >>8.Qxh6+ Kf7 >> +- (1.89) Depth: 9 00:00:07 2235kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qg5 Ne3 3.Rxh6+ Bxh6 4.Rh1 Ng4 5.e6 Bxe6 6.Bxe6 f3 7.Qxg4 >> +- (2.33) Depth: 9 00:00:11 4029kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qg5 Ne3 3.Rxh6+ Bxh6 4.Qf6+ Qg7 5.Rh1 Bh3 6.Rxh3 Ng4 7.Qxf4 Qxf7 >>8.gxf7 Nxe5 >> +- (2.73) Depth: 10 00:00:26 9166kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Bf5 3.Qxf5 Ne3 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Qf6+ Qg7 6.Rh1 Ng4 7.Qf4 c6 8.Qxg4 >>Rf8 >> +- (4.05) Depth: 10 00:00:44 15973kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Bf5 3.Qxf5 Ne3 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Qf6+ Qg7 6.Rh1 Ng4 7.Qf4 c6 8.g3 >>Rf8 9.Qxg4 >> +- (4.14) Depth: 11 00:01:53 41818kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Bf5 3.Qxf5 Ne3 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Qf6+ Qg7 6.Rh1 Ng4 7.Qf4 c6 8.Qxg4 >>Qxf7 9.gxf7 Kh7 >> +- (4.54) Depth: 12 00:03:42 79943kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Bf5 3.Qxf5 Ne3 4.Rxh6+ Bxh6 5.Qf6+ Qg7 6.Rh1 Ng4 7.Qf4 >> +- (4.54) Depth: 12 00:04:00 87418kN >>1...Qf8 2.Qxf4 Bf5 3.Qg5 Na3+ 4.Kb2 Nxc2 5.Rxh6+ Bxh6 6.Qf6+ Qg7 7.Rh1 Bxg6 >>8.Be8 >> +- (4.54) Depth: 13 00:11:00 218149kN >> >>(Blass, Tel-aviv 02.01.2002) >> >> >>Uri > > >If b3 isn't a forced mate, then I disagree. WAC is about finding the best >move in a position. If several moves lead to the same score, then they are >all reasonable solutions. But if one leads to +4 and one leads to a forced >mate, the +4 is wrong, because the program simply isn't seeing deep enough >to see the _real_ issue... programs can also play Qd8+ for the wrong reason so by this logic program that found Qd8+ without the right score also did not solve it. Here is another example from WAC Wac31 [D]rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6 g3 A program that plays Qxa8 at depth 1 does not see the real reason that it is winning but Qxa8 is considered as a solution in Dann corbit's site. 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.