Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 07:48:52 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 10:25:11, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 31, 2002 at 10:06:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 31, 2002 at 09:58:28, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 2002 at 09:33:06, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On December 31, 2002 at 09:01:55, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the following position, with Black to move, Fritz 8 says the correct move is >>>>>Re8. It gives a position evaluation of 0.00 >>>>> >>>>>5r1k/pp1p2pp/n4q2/2pB4/2P2r2/8/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 18 >>>>>wKg1,Qe2,Bd5,Ra1,f1,Pa2,b2,c4,f2,g2,h2/bKh8,Qf6,Na6,Rf4,f8,Pa7,b7,c5,d7,g7,h7 >>>>> >>>>>I forgot how to display the position here. Maybe someone will do it for me. >>>>> >>>>>Bob D. >>>> >>>>Can you post the relevant game. >>> >>>I absolutely guarantee that you don't want to see the relevant game. It was one >>>of my 60+ blitz 2 12 ICC games which I played recently, after years of >>>inactivity, for the purpose of determining how much my game had deteriorated. >>>The game is filled with big errors on both sides. >>> >>>> >>>>Maybe Re8 force repetition of the position so Fritz prefers repetition and not >>>>negative evaluation(of course in that case white made an horrible blunder in a >>>>previous move). >>> >>>If you will look at the position, you will see that there is no chance for a >>>draw by repetition of the position. But your idea does sound right. Fritz must >>>have gone into a mode where it "thought" there was a repetition of the position. >>> Maybe there is an unintended jump to that "repetition of position display" >>>subroutine or function which occurs improperly sometimes. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>A lot of programs evaluates first repetition as a draw. >>>>It may be wrong in analysis but in games it is usually no problem. >>> >>>This jumped out at me in post-mortem analysis. Strangely, my opponent in the >>>actual game also played Re8?? and I, shamefully [!!!], failed to capture the >>>rook. Maybe this has something to do with the bug. >> >>In that case it is not a bug because most programs are designed to assume that >>second repetition is a draw in the analysis. >> >>A bug is something that the programmer did not mean to happen. >> >>I admit that there may be cases when it is not a draw but there are more >>important things to improve than this problem that is not easy to solve in a >>productive way(solutions may generate other problems like not seeing a draw by >>repetition or not trying to make progress and often repeating a previous >>position). >> >>Uri > >Chessbase should know that most chessplayers are using Fritz for Analysis. >Fritz engines often used the famous X piece in analysis mode. >In my opinion Fritz engines are simply bad analysis engines. >Shredder 7 does not show 0.00 in case I repeat moves in this position. >it shows +-(9.94) Qxe8+ even if I repeat the moves 100 times.
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.