Author: Mike Hood
Date: 07:36:54 02/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2002 at 05:49:48, Kurt Utzinger wrote: [White "Hiarcs 7.32"] [Black "Chess Tiger 14.0"] [D] 8/8/K1kn2R1/8/P6r/8/8/8 b - - 0 1 121. Ka6?? 121... Rxa4# >Such error happens from time to time in computer games and are the exception of >the rule. And it is clear: nobody will ever be able to reproduce the situation. >Kurt I agree. It's obviously a problem of selectivity, somewhere along the line. The very first chess programs relied on brute force to analyse all possible continuations, but today's chess programs have only become stronger by deciding what NOT to analyse. All the same, in the above position I have to naively ask, "Shouldn't a program at least do a 2-ply exhaustive search from the root?" (Or is it 3-ply, to recognize that there are no legal replies to Rxa4?) Missing a forced mate in 4 is something that might happen to me on a bad day, but this example is a blunder that only a beginner would make. It seems to me that this is a special position. Hiarcs is obviously fighting to avoid a draw by the 50-move rule. (See my original post: a4 in move 111 is already the 42nd move according to the rule). But just think of the implications if this hadn't happened in an obscure engine-engine game. Just imagine if Black's name were not "Chess Tiger" but "Kramnik". Instead of this small discussion (which will probably die out after a few replies) it would be a matter of heated argument for months. It wouldn't just reflect on Mark. Every computer chess programmer would be up against the wall. The boulevard press would be less kind than we are in here. Just imagine the headline: "After 40 years of research computer chess still sucks" I'm not a journalist, so I won't speak those words myself :) All I can say is that this is a strange curiosity, and I hope I won't see it again.
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.