Author: martin fierz
Date: 22:05:46 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 00:49:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 00:18:02, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 16, 2002 at 22:51:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2002 at 20:35:49, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2002 at 18:03:10, Johan De Bock wrote: >>>> >>>>>Last line of the live analysis of game 6 of Kramnik-DF: >>>>> >>>>>Mig: Btw, if white takes the bishop on a6, then b2 is a winning shot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Isn't that funny :-) >>>> >>>>i'm not sure why that should be funny. i have seen no analysis which proves that >>>>the position after b2 is in fact a draw. besides, it looks completely lost, >>>>which is also the reason why kramnik resigned - it's quite natural to assume >>>>that it is lost. >>>>if it is in fact a draw, it is still very doubtful that kramnik would have been >>>>able to hold the endgame as obviously a lot of precision on the white side is >>>>required (unlike the famous DB-kasparov game where kasparov missed a perpetual >>>>check). >>>> >>>>aloha >>>> martin >>> >>>Why is the DB/Kasparov draw _easier_? It took a _bunch_ of us, working all >>>night, to >>>prove that Re8 led to a draw, and the line was very precise. One wrong move and >>>the >>>draw turned into a loss instantly... >>> >>>It doesn't seem that "easy_ to me... >>> >>>It wasn't so easy for Kasparov either. :) >> >>i guess i'm wrong then :-) >>all i remembered was that people said "kasparov missed a perpetual". and i >>thought i remembered that kasparov was disgusted that he missed it - but my >>memory is of course not very reliable :-) >>a perpetual is something you can calculate. in the kramnik DF potential draw, >>*if* it were possible for white to force that RPP-QP drawn endgame, then it >>would be "easy" in the sense that you can find it at some point, and once you >>have found it it's game over again. however, if white cannot force that endgame, >>then he has to defend RR-QN+passed-pawn, with great accuracy. >>why is one easier than another? because once you see the perpetual, you see it >>and it's a draw - and you cannot lose any more. >>defending a possibly tenable but inferior position on the other hand is *never* >>over. the computer will torture you for 50 or 100 moves (assuming you cannot get >>into this drawn RPP-QP endgame), and any slip will lose the game. >> >>aloha >> martin > > > > >The DB perpetual was very deep. IE there were many "set-up" moves that had to >be >played perfectly, before the position with the perpetual was reached... Many of >the moves >are one-only type moves, but they are very difficult to find if you don' t know >they are >there, which is why it took almost 24 hours to convince everyone that this was >drawn. >Everytime a draw was disproven, another was found, until it finally could not be >refuted... i looked at the position of DB-kasparov again, and i stay with my conclusion: the DB-kasparov draw is easier. two reasons: 1) it seems the kasparov-DB draw can be proven. there are not that many lines that white can try alternatively. the kramnik-DF potential draw will be very hard to prove if it is provable at all. 2) much more important: in the DB-kasparov position every decent chess player will see that Qe3 is *potentially* a perpetual. i'm not saying he will see a perpetual (probably he won't), but he will easily recognize the "drawing potential" in this position. in the kramnik-DF game it takes quite a conceptual leap to realize that you can draw with 2 rooks against Q+N+passed pawn. normal "chess common sense" just tells you that this is dead lost, while the same normal chess common sense tells you that the kasparov position might be a perpetual. so even if the kramnik position does turn out to be provably a draw (and therefore computationally approximately as easy as the kasparov draw), it is conceptually much harder to find the kramnik draw. aloha martin
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.