Author: Christopher A. Morgan
Date: 09:59:22 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
Your FEN should be: 5k2/7p/6p1/1p3p2/5P2/5P2/PPr4P/5KR1 b - -, that is black to move, not white. Shredder 7 sees ...Rxh2 almost immediately, while Fritz 8 sees it immediately, both on Athlon 750 with 96MB hash. New game 5k2/7p/6p1/1p3p2/5P2/5P2/PPr4P/5KR1 b - - 0 1 Analysis by Shredder 7: 1...Rxb2 ì (-1.26) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 1...Rxb2 ì (-1.26) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 1...Rxb2 2.Rg2 ì (-1.30) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg4 ì (-1.32) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 ì (-1.39) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 ì (-1.39) Depth: 3/4 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 -+ (-1.66) Depth: 4/5 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 -+ (-1.66) Depth: 4/6 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.Kg3 -+ (-1.67) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.Kg3 Ke7 -+ (-1.79) Depth: 6/9 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.b3 Ke7 5.a4 -+ (-1.81) Depth: 7/11 00:00:00 5kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.b3 b4 5.Kg3 Ke7 -+ (-1.80) Depth: 8/14 00:00:00 13kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.a3 Ke7 5.Kg3 Ke6 6.b3 -+ (-1.91) Depth: 9/13 00:00:00 26kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 h5 4.a3 Ke7 5.Kg3 Ke6 6.b3 Kd5 -+ (-1.87) Depth: 10/15 00:00:00 43kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd8 5.Kg3 h5 6.b3 Ke7 7.a4 -+ (-1.62) Depth: 11/14 00:00:00 71kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Kf2 Rxf4 4.b3 Ke7 5.Ke3 Rh4 6.a3 Ke6 ì (-1.34) Depth: 11/18 00:00:01 150kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Kf2 Rxf4 4.b3 Rh4 5.a3 Ke7 6.Ke3 Ke6 7.Rd2 ì (-1.39) Depth: 12/19 00:00:02 294kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Kf2 Rxf4 4.b3 Rh4 5.a3 Ke7 6.Ke3 Ke6 7.Rd2 g5 -+ (-1.45) Depth: 13/21 00:00:03 523kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Re2 Rxf4 4.Kg2 Rd4 5.Kg3 Rd5 6.b3 b4 7.Rc2 h6 8.Rc7 ì (-1.40) Depth: 14/23 00:00:05 1032kN, tb=1 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Rc2 Rxf4 4.Kg2 Rd4 5.Kg3 h5 6.Rc5 b4 7.a4 bxa3 8.bxa3 Ke7 ì (-1.36) Depth: 15/23 00:00:10 2093kN, tb=5 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Rc2 Rxf4 4.Kg2 Rd4 5.Kg3 h5 6.Rc5 Rb4 7.b3 Ke7 ì (-1.30) Depth: 16/25 00:00:17 3409kN, tb=41 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Rc2 Rxf4 4.Kf2 h5 5.Rc5 Rb4 6.b3 Ke7 7.Rc6 Kf7 8.Kg2 -+ (-1.50) Depth: 17/29 00:00:38 7792kN, tb=184 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rh4 3.Rd2 Rxf4 4.Kg2 Ke7 5.Kg3 Rb4 6.b3 h5 7.Rd3 Kf6 8.a3 Ke6 -+ (-1.46) Depth: 18/30 00:01:33 18691kN, tb=1151 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Ke6 5.b3 Kd5 6.Kg3 Kd4 7.Kh3 Kc3 8.a4 Kb4 9.Kg2 bxa4 10.Kg1 ì (-1.35) Depth: 19/31 00:02:09 26368kN, tb=1782 New game 5k2/7p/6p1/1p3p2/5P2/5P2/PPr4P/5KR1 b - - 0 1 Analysis by Fritz 8: 1...Rxh2! -+ (-2.44) Depth: 7/16 00:00:00 12kN 1...Rxh2 2.b3 Rxa2 3.Rg3 -+ (-2.59) Depth: 7/16 00:00:00 15kN 1...Rxh2 2.b4 Rxa2 3.Rg3 Rb2 4.Rh3 -+ (-2.69) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 32kN 1...Rxh2 2.b3 Rxa2 3.Rg3 Rb2 4.Rh3 Kg7 5.b4 Rxb4 -+ (-2.75) Depth: 9/21 00:00:00 66kN 1...Rxh2-- -+ (-2.47) Depth: 10/18 00:00:00 115kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 h6 6.a4 b4 7.Kf2 Kd5 -+ (-2.34) Depth: 10/18 00:00:00 131kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 h6 6.a4 bxa4 7.bxa4 Kc5 8.Kg3 Kb4 -+ (-2.41) Depth: 11/19 00:00:00 255kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 h6 6.a4 bxa4 7.bxa4 Kc5 8.Kg3 Kb4 -+ (-2.41) Depth: 12/20 00:00:01 446kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 h6 6.Kf2 Kd5 7.a4 Kd4 8.axb5 Kc5 9.Ke3 -+ (-2.31) Depth: 13/22 00:00:03 887kN 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 Kc5 6.Kf2 Kd4 7.a4 b4 8.Kg3 h6 9.Kh4 -+ (-2.44) Depth: 14/27 00:00:05 1779kN, tb=1 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 h6 6.Kf2 Kc6 7.Ke3 Kc5 8.Kd3 Kb6 9.a4 bxa4 -+ (-2.44) Depth: 15/24 00:00:10 3202kN, tb=3 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 Kd5 6.Kf2 Kd4 7.a4 b4 8.Kg3 h6 9.Kh3 Kd5 -+ (-2.38) Depth: 16/28 00:00:17 5959kN, tb=17 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.a3 Kd6 5.b3 Kd5 6.Kf2 Kd4 7.a4 b4 8.Kg3 h6 9.Kh3 Kd5 -+ (-2.38) Depth: 17/29 00:00:36 13577kN, tb=47 1...Rxh2! -+ (-2.66) Depth: 18/35 00:01:01 23063kN, tb=76 1...Rxh2 2.Rg2 Rxg2 3.Kxg2 Ke7 4.Kf2 Kd6 5.Ke3 Kd5 6.Kd2 Kc4 7.Ke3 h6 -+ (-2.63) Depth: 19/41 00:02:06 46431kN, tb=578 On January 01, 2003 at 11:41:37, Roy Brunjes wrote: >I came across this endgame in a software course I am using for chess training. >I gave the position to Hiarcs 8, Junior 7, and Chessmaster 9000 and they seem to >miss the point. I am wondering what Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 have to say about >it. > >[D] 5k2/7p/6p1/1p3p2/2r2P2/5P2/PP5P/5K1R b - - > >In this position, with Black to move, Rc2 is the stated best move. I have no >argument with that and neither do any of the programs I tried. The rub comes >after this: > >1. ... Rc2 >2. Rg1 > >Which gives this position: > >[D] 5k2/7p/6p1/1p3p2/5P2/5P2/PPr4P/5KR1 w - - > >Now White is attempting to activate his rook. Programs I have tried (listed >above) all want to play 2. ... Rxb2 after searches running for 3-4 minutes >(admiteddly on my slow PIII 500 MHz laptop). This leads to a much more >difficult ending that Hiarcs 8 was unable to win against me (and I'm a Class C >player) at a time control of 10 mins + 10 secs per move. That tells me that the >move Rxb2 is probably not best. > >The training software says 2. ... Rxb2 is a mistake and instead recommends 2. >... Rxh2! > >Then, after 2. ... Rxh2 comes 3. Rg2 Rxg2 4. Kxg2. Now both sides bring Kings >to the center and Black must use his passed pawn on the h file to distract the >White King from his job of keeping Black's King away from his pawns on a2 and >b2. Once the White King is forced to head toward the Black h pawn, the invasion >of the Black King wins the game. > >My question is this: What programs will play 2. ... Rxh2? And 3. ... Rxg2 >[after 3. Rg2 by White] instead of 3. ... Rh4, and after how much time? >Chessmaster 9000 wants to play 2. ... Rxh2 for a bit but then opts for 2. ... >Rxb2 instead after a search of 7/12 ply. It seems to stick with that for quite >a while and then finally changes back to 2. ... Rxh2 at ply 10/15 (4 minutes 25 >seconds on my old, slow PIII-500 laptop). > >It seems to me that the principles are pretty clear and that a good endgame >playing program should not need huge amounts of CPU time to select the right >plan. > >Thanks in advance for putting Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 to the test. Feel free to >try it with other programs as well -- I have particular interest in those two >however as they are newer and I have no access to them. So far, only CM9000 >does find the right sequence of moves, though it takes quite a few ply to do so. > Yes, of course my faster computers would get there quicker, but still, they >will require just as many ply to see the win. I would have thought a program >with lots of endgame knowledge could spot the win fairly quickly. > >Lastly, Happy New Year to all CCC readers! > >Roy
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.