Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:17:24 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 09:18:50, Graham Laight wrote: >On February 06, 2003 at 09:01:45, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On February 06, 2003 at 04:59:26, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>I have to admit, I tended towards the neutral in terms of how good PCs were >>>against DB. I had a feeling that Bob might be correct - but the PC apologists, >>>led by Amir, put what looked like a an overwhelming amount of evidence into the >>>debate. >>> >>>Now, the truth is on the table for all to see. >>> >>>For all those years, Amir was arguing that DB was no better than PCs, and Bob >>>Hyatt argued the reverse position. >>> >>>Of the 5 games played so far, DJ has won one. Therefore, there is a 1 in 5 >>>chance that DJ will win tomorrow. If DJ does win, it will merely achieve the >>>same result that DB achieved 6 years ago. There is a 4 in 5 probability that it >>>won't - and that after 6 years of catching up time, DJ will actually achieve a >>>WORSE result than DB achieved. >>> >>>Remember - if IBM had continued to develop DB, then, under Moore's law, it would >>>be doing a continuous 2 billion nodes per second today (peaking at close to 10 >>>billion nodes per second). >>> >>>The argument is now closed. Amir has been proven wrong. >>> >>>I hope Amir is going to do the gentlemanly thing and apologise for all the years >>>he has been misleading us in an insistant and indignant manner. >>> >>>-g >> >>Nothing of the sort have been proven. >> - The conditions are completely different. Kasparov had the opportunity to >> prepare against Junior. In general he also should be stronger against >> computers by now. > >Kasparov has said that having the program to practise against is worse than >useless, because the programmers can change whatever they like, and whenever >they like (except during games). I see no reason why he should now be stronger >against computers. I see a good reason for kasparov and for every professional player to be stronger thanks to computers I believe that the fact that computers are stronger can help humans to learn to play better. Professional players may become better in tactics thanks to having a set of exercises to do. The trainer of kasparov can look at computer-computer games and find a lot of cases when computers play well and give the positions as exercises to kasparov when kasparov should not only find the right move but also give important lines and in case of winning material explain why the side to move wins material. Here is an example for a possible exercise for kasparov from a game when Movei lost against resp. [D]4rr2/Q1p3k1/1p4p1/2pPqn1p/2P2R2/2PBp1P1/P3R2P/6K1 b - - 0 31 What is the right move for black and explain your choice. I analyzed it with yace(only material,pawn=0.8,knight=3.4,bishop=3.5) and yace has the illusion that Ra8 is winning material but later changed it's mind Movei 0.07.995 - Resp 0.19 4r2r/Q1p3k1/1p4p1/2pPqn1p/2P2R2/2PBp1P1/P6P/4R1K1 b - - 0 1 Analysis by Yace 0.99.56: 30...Qxf4 31.gxf4 +- (5.11) Depth: 1 00:00:02 30...Nxg3 31.hxg3 +- (2.70) Depth: 1 00:00:02 30...Qxc3 31.Qxc7+ Re7 = (0.10) Depth: 1 00:00:02 30...Qxc3 31.Qxc7+ Re7 = (0.10) Depth: 2 00:00:02 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rxa2 32.Bxf5 gxf5 = (0.00) Depth: 2 00:00:02 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rxa2 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 2 00:00:02 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 2 00:00:02 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rxa2 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 3 00:00:02 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rxa2 32.Rd1 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 4 00:00:02 30...Qxc3 31.Rxf5 gxf5 32.d6 µ (-0.71) Depth: 4 00:00:02 30...Qxc3 31.Rxf5 gxf5 32.Qxc7+ Kg8 33.Rd1 -+ (-1.50) Depth: 4 00:00:02 30...Qxc3 31.Bxf5 Qxe1+ 32.Rf1 Qa5 33.Qxc7+ Kh6 34.Bd3 -+ (-1.50) Depth: 5 00:00:02 35kN 30...Qxc3 31.Bxf5 Qxe1+ 32.Rf1 Qa5 33.Qxc7+ Kh6 34.Bd3 g5 -+ (-1.50) Depth: 6 00:00:02 107kN 30...Qxc3 31.Bxf5 Qxe1+ 32.Rf1 Qa5 33.Qxc7+ Kh6 34.Qf4+ Kh7 35.Qc7+ Re7 36.Qxe7+ Kh6 µ (-1.10) Depth: 7 00:00:03 285kN 30...Qxc3 31.Bxf5 Qxe1+ 32.Rf1 Qa5 33.Qxc7+ Kh6 34.Qf4+ Kh7 35.Qc7+ Kh6 = (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:03 552kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rhb8 32.Qxb8 Rxb8 33.Rxf5 gxf5 34.Bxf5 = (-0.01) Depth: 7 00:00:04 552kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rhb8 32.Re4 Qxg3+ 33.hxg3 Rxb7 34.Ra1 Nxg3 35.Rxe3 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 7 00:00:04 552kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rhb8 32.Re4 Qxg3+ 33.hxg3 Rxb7 34.Bb1 Nxg3 35.R4xe3 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 8 00:00:05 998kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Qxc3 32.Qxc7+ Kh6 33.Rd1 Rxa2 34.Rxf5 gxf5 35.Qxb6+ Kg7 36.Qxc5 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 9 00:00:11 3353kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Qxc3 32.Qxc7+ Kh6 33.Rxf5 Qxe1+ 34.Rf1 Qxf1+ 35.Bxf1 Ra7 36.Qxa7 g5 ³ (-0.30) Depth: 10 00:00:31 13317kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Qxc3 32.Qxc7+ Kh6 33.Rxf5 Qxe1+ 34.Rf1 Qc3 35.Qf4+ Kh7 36.Qc7+ Kh6 37.Qf4+ Kh7 38.Qxe3 Qg7 = (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:35 15157kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 Rxa2 32.Re4 Qxc3 33.Qxc7+ Kh6 34.Qf4+ Kh7 35.R1xe3 Ra1+ 36.Bf1 Rxf1+ 37.Qxf1 Nxe3 38.Re7+ Kh6 39.Qf4+ = (0.00) Depth: 11 00:01:48 49052kN 30...Ra8 31.Qb7 h4 32.Bxf5 gxf5 33.Re2 hxg3 34.hxg3 Kh6 35.Kg2 Qxc3 36.Qc6+ Kg5 37.Qxc7 Qd3 = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:05:26 149123kN (Blass, Tel-Aviv 06.02.2003) The game continued 30...Rhf8 31.Re2 h4 I do not know about GM's opinion but at least for me Rhf8 and h4 seems not consistent because if I play h4 I want the rook at h8. Why Rhf8? It turned out that after 30...Rhf8 31.Bxf5 Rxf5 Rxf5 gxf5 black is a pawn up. Movei 0.07.995 - Resp 0.19 4r3/Q1p3k1/1p6/2pPqp1p/2P5/2P1p1P1/P6P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1 Analysis by Yace 0.99.56: 33.Rxe3 Qxe3+ 34.Kh1 -+ (-4.20) Depth: 1 00:00:00 33.d6 Qxd6 µ (-0.80) Depth: 1 00:00:00 33.Qb7 = (0.00) Depth: 1 00:00:00 33.Qb7 Qxc3 = (0.00) Depth: 2 00:00:00 33.Qb7 Qxc3 34.Qxc7+ Kg8 = (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00 33.Qb7 Re7 34.Rf1 e2 35.Re1 Qxc3 µ (-0.80) Depth: 4 00:00:00 33.Qb7 Re7 34.Rf1 e2 35.Re1 µ (-0.80) Depth: 4 00:00:00 33.Qa3 Qxc3 34.Qxc3+ Kh6 µ (-0.79) Depth: 4 00:00:00 33.Qa3 Re7 34.Rf1 e2 35.Re1 = (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00 33.Qa3 f4 34.Rxe3 fxe3 35.Kh1 ³ (-0.40) Depth: 5 00:00:00 9kN 33.Qa3 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Kh1 µ (-0.80) Depth: 5 00:00:00 9kN 33.Re2 f4 34.gxf4 Re7 µ (-0.79) Depth: 5 00:00:00 9kN 33.Re2 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Kg2 Qxc4 = (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:00 9kN 33.Re2 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Qb7 Qxc4 36.Qxc7+ Kg8 = (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 36kN 33.Re2 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Rg2+ Kh6 36.Qb7 Re7 37.Qc6+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:01 65kN 33.Re2 Kf8 34.Qa3 f4 35.gxf4 Qxf4 36.Rf2 exf2+ 37.Kg2 ³ (-0.40) Depth: 8 00:00:01 149kN 33.Re2 Kf8 34.Qa3 f4 35.gxf4 Qxf4 36.Qc1 Qxc4 37.Rxe3 µ (-0.80) Depth: 8 00:00:01 149kN 33.Qa4 Qxc3 34.Qd7+ Kh6 35.Qc6+ Kg5 36.Rf1 Qe1 37.Rxe1 Kg4 µ (-0.79) Depth: 8 00:00:03 689kN 33.Qa4 Qxc3 34.Qd7+ Kh6 35.Qc6+ Kg5 36.Rf1 Qe5 37.h4+ Kg4 38.Qg6+ Kh3 39.Rxf5 Qxg3+ 40.Qxg3+ Kxg3 = (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:03 1140kN 33.Qa4 Qxc3 34.Qd7+ Kh6 35.Qc6+ Kh7 36.Qd7+ Kh6 = (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:06 2610kN 33.Qa4 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Re2 Kf8 36.Kg2 Qg4+ 37.Kh1 Qxe2 38.Qc2 ³ (-0.40) Depth: 10 00:00:15 6221kN 33.Qa4 f4 34.gxf4 Qxf4 35.Re2 Kf8 36.Rg2 Qe5 37.Qc6 e2 38.Rf2+ Ke7 39.d6+ cxd6 40.Qc7+ Ke6 µ (-0.80) Depth: 10 00:00:18 7630kN 33.Qa4 f4 34.Qd7+ Kh6 35.Qc6+ Kh7 36.d6 cxd6 37.Kg2 e2 38.Qd7+ Re7 39.Qc6 Qe4+ 40.Qxe4+ Rxe4 µ (-0.80) Depth: 11 00:00:55 24288kN (Blass, Tel-Aviv 06.02.2003) It also turns out that white is losing a pawn after 31.Re2 h4 also win a pawn for black as yace understand after going back and learning and it turned out that there is no alternative. I do not understand the exact reasons of computers but I believe that if kasparov investigate it then he can understand and understanding a lot of tactical ideas can help him to play better. Movei 0.07.995 - Resp 0.19 4rr2/Q1p3k1/1p4p1/2pPqn1p/2P2R2/2PBp1P1/P6P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1 Analysis by Yace 0.99.56: 31.Bxf5 Rxf5 32.Rxf5 gxf5 33.Qa4 f4 34.Qd7+ Kh6 35.Qc6+ Kh7 36.d6 cxd6 37.Kg2 e2 38.Qd7+ Re7 39.Qh3 Qe4+ 40.Kg1 µ (-0.80) Depth: 1 00:00:00 31.d6 Qxd6 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 1 00:00:00 31.Rf3 = (0.10) Depth: 1 00:00:00 31.Rf3 Qxc3 = (0.10) Depth: 2 00:00:00 31.Rf3 Ra8 32.Qb7 = (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00 31.Bb1 Ra8 32.Qb7 = (0.10) Depth: 3 00:00:00 31.Bb1 Qxc3 32.Qxc7+ Re7 33.Rxe3 Qxe3+ ³ (-0.70) Depth: 4 00:00:00 31.Bb1 Qxc3 32.Ref1 Re7 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 4 00:00:00 31.Qa3 Qxc3 32.Qxc3+ Kg8 ³ (-0.69) Depth: 4 00:00:00 31.Qa3 Ra8 32.Qb2 Kg8 = (0.10) Depth: 4 00:00:00 31.Qa3 Ra8 32.Qb2 Kg8 33.Re4 = (0.10) Depth: 5 00:00:00 31kN 31.Qa3 Nxg3 32.hxg3 g5 33.Rxf8 Qxg3+ 34.Kh1 Qh3+ 35.Kg1 Qg3+ 36.Kh1 Qxe1+ 37.Rf1 Qxc3 = (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 75kN 31.Qa3 Nxg3 32.Rxf8 Rxf8 33.Qc1 Nf5 34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.Rxe3 = (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:01 423kN 31.Qa3 Nxg3 32.Rxf8 Rxf8 33.Qc1 e2 34.Bxg6 Kxg6 35.Rxe2 ³ (-0.40) Depth: 8 00:00:02 1039kN 31.Qa3 Nxg3 32.Rxf8 Rxf8 33.Qc1 e2 34.Qd2 Rf3 35.Kg2 Qe3 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 8 00:00:02 1039kN 31.Re2 Qxc3 32.Bxf5 Re7 33.Bxg6 Rxf4 34.gxf4 c6 35.Qxe7+ Kxg6 ³ (-0.69) Depth: 8 00:00:05 2350kN 31.Re2 Qxc3 32.Bxf5 Rxf5 33.Rxf5 gxf5 34.Qxc7+ Kg8 35.Qxb6 Qc1+ 36.Kg2 Qxc4 = (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:05 2350kN 31.Re2 Ra8 32.Qb7 Rfb8 33.Qc6 Qxc3 34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.Rxf5 Qxc4 = (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:10 4836kN 31.Re2 h4 32.Re4 Qxc3 33.Rxe8 Rxe8 34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.gxh4 Qxc4 36.Qxc7+ Kh6 37.Rg2 = (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:36 17123kN 31.Re2 h4 32.Re4 Qxc3 33.Rxe8 Rxe8 34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.gxh4 Qxc4 36.Qxc7+ Kh6 37.Qxb6+ Kh5 38.Kf1 Qxd5 = (0.00) Depth: 11 00:01:13 35325kN 31.Re2 h4 32.Re4 Qxc3 33.Rxe8 Rxe8 34.Bxf5 Qc1+ 35.Kg2 Qxc4 36.Qxc7+ Kg8 37.Rxe3 Rxe3 38.g4 ³ (-0.40) Depth: 12 00:02:37 74710kN 31.Re2 h4 32.Re4 Qxc3 33.Rxe8 Rxe8 34.Bxf5 Qc1+ 35.Kg2 Qxc4 36.Qxc7+ Kg8 37.Re1 gxf5 38.gxh4 µ (-0.80) Depth: 12 00:04:05 115934kN 31.Qa4 Qxc3 32.Qd1 Qxe1+ 33.Qxe1 Kh6 µ (-0.79) Depth: 12 00:09:27 257858kN 31.Qa4 Qxc3 32.Qd1 Kg8 33.Kg2 e2 34.Qb1 Ne3+ 35.Kh1 Rxf4 36.gxf4 Nxc4 37.Bxg6 Qf3+ 38.Kg1 Rf8 ³ (-0.70) Depth: 12 00:10:29 288334kN (Blass, Tel-Aviv 06.02.2003) Uri
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.