Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:01:51 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 20:06:37, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 27, 2003 at 16:38:54, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On January 27, 2003 at 16:15:32, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2003 at 16:00:40, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>> >>>>On January 27, 2003 at 12:42:09, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 27, 2003 at 12:35:50, Georg Langrath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I tried to let Chessmaster 9000 play against itself in endgame KRKQ. The side >>>>>>KR with tablebases and the side KQ without. KQ-side wasn?t nearer checkmate in >>>>>>move 50 than in move 1, even with 3 minutes per move. It is rather amusing to >>>>>>look at. I think that it is impossible for a computer to solve without special >>>>>>knowledge or tablebases as in the case KBNK. >>>>>>Georg >>>>> >>>>>Now do the experiment again but let a strong human play for the KQ-side and see >>>>>whether the result is any different. ;) >>>>> >>>>>Sargon >>>> >>>>A strong player will win this ending after the second or third try if he has not >>>>practised before. It is not really difficult, even a weak player like I can win >>>>against a computer with tablebases after some practise. >>>>José. >>> >>>Wasn't there this experiment with some GMs who failed to win when they played >>>against the TBs? >> >>Yes, it was this. GM Walter Browne could not win against Belle. But he tried >>again after a few days and won quite easily. I think he could have won the same >>day (after a few tries) if he were not so shocked. >>José. > > >Since you seemed to be inventing an explanation I had never heard before, I got >curious and decided to do a little internet searching on the matter. I found the >following link which thoroughly contradicts your characterization that WB "won >quite easily" in the rematch: > >http://gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/usenet-a-news/NET.chess/82.01.07_sri-unix.458_net.chess.txt > >The ending is tough, even for a GM against good defense. To think otherwise is >to underestimate it. > It is tough for a human, I agree. I was at the "rematch" and if I recall, GM Browne mated on move 50, not anywhere near the optimal number and nearly turning a win into a draw... And it might be that he won the rook on move 50, rather than mating... That was a _long_ time ago. But for computers, it really should be trivial... > >> >>>Or am I mixing this with another endgame? >>> >>>Sargon
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.