Author: James T. Walker
Date: 05:32:12 01/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 21:01:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 27, 2003 at 20:06:37, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On January 27, 2003 at 16:38:54, José ¤e Jes?rcí¡ Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2003 at 16:15:32, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 27, 2003 at 16:00:40, José ¤e Jes?rcí¡ 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. >>>>>Jos鮊>>>> >>>>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. >>>Jos鮊>> >> >>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 GM Browne won the rook on move 50 and it was a "win" for him. Not easy at all. I was not there but I rember reading about it and I knew there was something "special" about the rematch. I couldn't rember what untill I read the article mentioned above. I rember thinking how great it was that computers were now teaching GM's how to play chess. Jim
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.