Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:11:32 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 01:14:14, Ingo Althofer wrote: >On October 16, 2002 at 17:07:19, GuyHaworth wrote: >>The Bib page merely replicates the analysis referred to >>by Richard Bean in "kasparov on possible draw in game 6" >>... note 'possible'. >> >>As I understand Russian even less than chess, I'm >>waiting for some authoritative comment on this >>'possible draw' .... > >We speak about the situation after Kramnik's possible >move 35.Rxa6 and the resulting position >White: Kg1, Ra6, Re1, Pf2, Pg3; >Black: Kg7, Rc8, Nd5, Ph7, Pb6, Pb3; >Black to move. > >It seems impossible to prove a draw by complete game >tree search. Especially, at move 40... there are several >alternatives instead of ...Qf5 which makes the tree >very bushy and large. > >However, here comes a new argument why Kramnik would have >had almost 100 percent practical drawing chances in Bahrain: > >It seems that Fritz and also many other chess programs do >not understand the character of the position. I replayed >the endgame with Shredder6.02 for both sides, on a 900 >MHz PC (Athlon), with 30 seconds per move. >Please, skip the resulting output and jump to the end >of the page when you don't like details. > >The file reads as follows (for each move): >move Shredder-evaluation/seaarch depth time in seconds > >I did not do renumbering, so move 1 in this file is move 35 >in the Bahrain game, and so on. > >1... b2 -4.23/14 30 >2.Ta7+ -4.25/14 31 Kg6 -4.34/13 30 >3.Td7 -4.21/14 31 Tc1 -4.21/15 30 >4.Td6+ -4.18/16 30 Sf6 -4.13/17 31 >5.Tdd1 -4.13/16 31 b1D -4.13/15 31 > >6.Txc1 -4.20/12 31 Df5 -4.17/12 31 >7.Tc6 -3.98/13 30 b5 -3.78/13 31 >8.Tee6 -3.88/13 31 b4 -3.88/13 31 >9.Tb6 -3.90/13 30 Kf7 -3.90/12 31 >10.Tec6 -3.66/12 30 Db1+ -3.18/11 31 > >11.Kh2 -2.92/12 31 Sd7 -2.69/12 31 >12.Tb7 -2.36/13 31 Ke7 -2.35/13 31 >13.Tc4 -2.47/13 31 Df1 -2.68/13 31 >14.Te4+ -2.82/13 31 Kd6 -3.01/13 31 >15.Td4+ -3.01/13 32 Kc6 -3.01/13 31 > >16.Tdxd7 -3.29/13 31 Dxf2+ -3.29/13 31 >17.Kh1 -3.41/13 31 Dxg3 -3.42/13 31 >18.Tg7 -3.66/12 31 Dh3+ -3.66/12 31 >19.Kg1 -3.66/13 2 h5 -3.66/12 31 >20.Tgc7+ -3.74/10 33 Kd6 -3.79/12 34 > >21.Tg7 -3.88/12 31 b3 -3.94/12 31 >22.Tg6+ -3.79/11 30 Ke5 -3.54/13 31 >23.Tgb6 -3.53/13 31 Dg3+ -3.50/12 31 >24.Kf1 -3.45/14 31 Df3+ -3.45/12 31 >25.Kg1 -3.44/13 31 Dg3+ -3.45/14 31 > >26.Kf1 -3.20/14 31 Df3+ -3.19/12 31 >27.Kg1 -2.94/12 30 De3+ -2.94/12 31 >28.Kf1 -2.94/13 31 Dd3+ -2.94/13 31 >29.Kg2 -2.94/13 30 De2+ -2.94/13 30 >30.Kg3 -2.69/13 31 Dg4+ -2.21/11 31 > >31.Kf2 -1.96/12 30 Dd4+ -1.61/12 32 >32.Kg2 -1.61/13 31 Dg4+ -1.61/13 31 >33.Kh2 -1.61/13 30 Df4+ -1.38/13 31 >34.Kg2 -1.37/14 31 Dg4+ -1.37/13 30 >35.Kh2 -1.37/14 31 Df4+ -1.37/13 30 > >36.Kg1 -1.37/14 30 Dd4+ -1.37/14 31 >37.Kh2 -1.37/14 30 Df2+ -1.36/12 31 >38.Kh3 -1.36/14 30 Df5+ -1.36/13 31 >39.Kh2 -1.36/14 31 Df2+ -1.36/13 31 >40.Kh3 -1.15/13 30 b2 -1.14/11 31 > >41.Tb5+ -1.24/12 30 Kd4 -1.21/14 30 >42.Tb4+ -1.21/13 30 Kd5 -1.09/14 30 >43.T4b5+ -1.07/14 30 Kd4 -0.97/13 31 >44.Tb4+ -1.07/14 31 Kc5 -1.07/14 31 >45.Txb2 -1.03/14 30 Df3+ -1.22/12 30 > >46.Kh2 -1.21/13 31 Df4+ -1.19/13 31 >47.Kg1 -1.19/13 31 Dd4+ -1.00/12 30 >48.Kh2 -0.96/13 30 Df4+ -0.96/13 30 >49.Kg2 -0.96/14 30 Dg4+ -0.96/14 31 >50.Kh2 -0.96/13 31 Dh4+ -0.96/13 31 > >51.Kg2 -0.87/14 30 De4+ -0.87/13 31 >52.Kh2 -0.60/13 30 Dh4+ -0.60/12 31 > >session stopped by the operator >********************************************* > >Now comes the new argument. I do not have the >complete Bahrain rules at hand, but Eric Schiller >(who was planned to be one of two arbiters >in Bahrain - but was rejected in June 2002) >made the following version public which was agreed >on in September 2001 and was still valid in June 2002: > >... >8.4 Draw Offers > 1... > 2... > 3.If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, > he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is > making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop > the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, > and theOpertor is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz > can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress > has been made. > 4... > >Here, the crucial point is that Fritz has to demonstrate that >IN THE LAST TEN MOVES progress has been made. >Now you may look back into the Shredder file above: >According to Shredder's evaluations there was for instance >no progress between moves 22 and 32. So, Kramnik might have >claimed a technical draw already at this point. > >Ingo Althofer. > >PS: I don't like this rule 8.4.3, but it seems to be reality. Where is Rule 8.4.3 given? Web address = ? Bob D.
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.