Author: martin fierz
Date: 10:58:24 11/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2002 at 11:15:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2002 at 03:43:58, martin fierz wrote: > >>On November 06, 2002 at 00:02:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2002 at 14:17:55, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On November 05, 2002 at 01:18:07, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>There is interesting and quite long analysis about game 2. which Kramnik won. >>>>>They claim, that after whites 35. Rc5, there is no need for black to lose: >>>>> >>>>>[D]r7/3k1ppp/8/p1R1p3/Pp2P3/5PP1/1P5P/4K3 b - - >>>>> >>>>>According to analysis 35.-Rc8 draws! Really? >>>> >>>>Rc8 is obviously the best move in this position. shortly after the game i posted >>>>this position asking if any program can find this move - only bob answered >>>>saying that if a position is lost it doesnt matter what move you make (hmm, >>>>sounds rather stupid to me...). >>> >>> >>>Sorry to sound "stupid" but my point was that trying to find a "good" move >>>after the game is lost is not very interesting. Much better to try to find >>>a good move _prior_ to things going south. >>> >>>Rc8 might be good enough to draw. I'm not so sure being a pawn down with an >>>active rook is that great if your opponent has a rook that is causing problems >>>as well. I would rather try to find something _earlier_ in the game... >> >>that still sounds a bit stupid to me :-) every chess player gets into positions >>where he wishes he had done something different earlier in the game. but then >>the right reaction is not to kick yourself for the earlier mistake, but instead >>to fight as well as you still can and make things hard for your opponent. >> >>you can also just see it as a test position which has no reference to what >>happened earlier in the game. black to move and fight for the draw! the >>discussion then was whether kramnik was playing specifically anti-fritz or not, >>i.e. whether it was really such a big help that he got the *exact* copy before >>the match. i still dont't think so, and this position is one of the reasons. >>which computer will play Rc8 here? my guess: not one. which means that kramnik's >>strategy (as seen in games 1-4, but no more later) would have worked against >>most other computers too... >> >>aloha >> martin > > >I suspect it _would_ have worked. I'm not particularly worried by this >position, because >it requires dumping a pawn for a little activity, which is not going to be easy >to implement. this is really a standard idea in rook endings. it's not like this is a "one in a million" position... >The work spent on getting a program to do that in the right way will be _far_ >greater than >the work required to avoid the entire sub-tree earlier in the game, which was my >point. This >is about "economy of effort" more than anything else. which may be right for this particular game. but rook endings are the most common endings, and this is a very common theme in rook endings. 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.