Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:21:30 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 01:05:46, martin fierz wrote: >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. The first move is not hard to find. The others are, however... And that is the problem with the position... >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. I'm not convinced yet. Both appear difficult to me, as a human. Both seem difficult even for GM players OTB... > >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.