Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:27:17 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 14:32:07, Peter Berger wrote:
>On March 11, 2003 at 14:10:26, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>
>>On March 11, 2003 at 13:08:01, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On March 11, 2003 at 05:56:08, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 13:44:12, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 12:17:36, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I did not look at the games but using a computer does not mean to play
>>>>>computer moves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Computers can be used for analysis of positions that is not on the board
>>>>>and I think that giving computer hours to analyze when you sleep may give more
>>>>>information so it is better than nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>I tend to believe that the top players do everything to help them and it
>>>>>includes using computers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree - it seems corresponcence chess is a dying sport. In maybe 10 years due
>>>>to advances in hardware (and software, too) chessprograms will be virtually
>>>>unbeatable. At this time top level correspondence chess will most likely be a
>>>>battle of clever computer operators.
>>
>>Humans with the help of computers (not vice versa) will be clearly stronger than
>>all computerprograms in 10 years too.
>>Do you understand anything about Analysing with a computer?
>>Do you know how deep one can get in a typical middlegame position?
>>Especially if you know from experience which moves the computer oppponents
>>prefer.
>>Do you know what ply 20,30,40 really means?
>>I hope so, but I have doubts when I read your statements.
>>Artificial intelligence or Quantum computers are "necessary" to play (almost for
>>AI) perfect chess. Not in the next 10 years of course.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>Yes, I think I do understand all of the above ;) - and I disagree.
>
>Peter
I think that things are dependent on the position.
There are openings that computers do not understand and may go wrong even after
analysis for a long time.
I remember a game in the israeli correspondence championship when all the
programs evaluated my position as better and it was not better.
I found that the move that program offer to me even after a long time
was probably losing and I guess that 27.Ndxb5 was not a good move(I played it
only after analyzing it and giving the computer to play against itself
and my conclusion at that time was that the position is unclear but I wanted to
win)
I did another move that was still evaluated by programs as better for me and
offered my opponent a draw because I felt that the gravitation of the
position is against me(I did not see a forced win for my opponent)
My opponent accepted the draw offer.
I do not know until today if he missed a win.
Here is the game(You can ignore the comments about time control)
Note that Ba7 was not suggested by my programs and they suggested a4
with a clear advantage for white but when I analyzed it some moves forwards I
found that it probably lose the game.
[Event "pIII800, 180'/40+180'/20+150'"]
[Site "Tel-aviv"]
[Date "2001.07.29"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Uri Blass"]
[Black "Yoav dothan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B43"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[EventDate "2001.??.??"]
{W=15.7 ply; 247kN/s B=19.1 ply; 635kN/s; 1 TBAs} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 b5 7. O-O Bb7 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qd3 d6 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11.
Rfe1 h6 12. Qh3 Be7 13. Rad1 O-O 14. Bc1 Kh8 15. Bf1 Rac8 16. f3 Ne5 17. Qg3
Rg8 18. Kh1 g5 19. Be3 h5 20. Nb3 h4 21. Qf2 Nfd7 22. h3 Kh7 23. Nd4 Nc4 24.
Bxc4 Qxc4 25. Re2 Rcf8 26. Red2 Qc7 27. Ndxb5 axb5 28. Nxb5 Qb8 29. Nxd6 Bc6
30. b4 Ba4 31. Nc4 Rd8 32. Nb2 Bc6 33. c4 Ne5 34. b5 Rxd2 35. Rxd2 Ba8 36. Ba7
Qb7 37. Bc5 1/2-1/2
Some analysis by Fritz8.0.0.8(I did not have that Fritz at that time)
Uri Blass - Yoav dothan
bq4r1/4bp1k/4p3/1P2n1p1/2P1P2p/P3BP1P/1N1R1QP1/7K w - - 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 8:
36.f4!
± (1.16) Depth: 6/26 00:00:00 94kN
36.f4!
± (1.31) Depth: 6/26 00:00:00 118kN
36.f4 gxf4 37.Bxf4 Rg6 38.Rd7 Bxa3 39.Nd3 Bd6 40.Nxe5
± (1.19) Depth: 7/24 00:00:00 203kN
36.f4 gxf4 37.Bxf4 Rg7 38.Rd7
± (1.22) Depth: 8/30 00:00:02 459kN
36.f4 gxf4 37.Bxf4 Rg7 38.a4 f5 39.Rd7 Bf6 40.Rxg7+ Kxg7 41.exf5
± (1.22) Depth: 9/27 00:00:03 938kN
36.Bc5!
± (1.25) Depth: 9/27 00:00:04 1084kN
36.Bc5 Qc7 37.Bxe7 Qxe7 38.Qd4 Qc7 39.Nd3 Nxd3
± (1.31) Depth: 9/27 00:00:04 1176kN
36.Bc5 Qc7 37.Bxe7 Qxe7 38.Qd4 Ng6 39.c5 e5 40.Qd6 Qa7 41.b6 Qxa3
± (1.31) Depth: 10/27 00:00:06 1706kN
36.Bc5 Qc7 37.Bxe7 Qxe7 38.Qd4 Ng6 39.c5 e5 40.Qd6 Qa7 41.b6 Qxa3
± (1.31) Depth: 11/28 00:00:10 3210kN
36.Bc5 Bxc5 37.Qxc5 Rc8 38.Qe7 Kg6 39.Rc2 Re8 40.Qc5 f5 41.Rf2 fxe4
± (1.25) Depth: 12/30 00:00:25 9176kN
36.Bc5 Bxc5 37.Qxc5 Rc8 38.Qe7 Kg6 39.Rc2 Re8 40.Qc5 Rc8 41.Qe7
± (1.25) Depth: 13/35 00:00:51 20172kN
36.a4!
± (1.28) Depth: 13/36 00:02:04 51465kN
36.a4 Bb4 37.Rd1 Rd8 38.Rf1 f6 39.c5 Bc3 40.f4 Ng6 41.Nd1 Ba5
± (1.31) Depth: 14/40 00:08:29 211543kN
(Blass, Tel-Aviv 11.03.2003)
You can see that Fritz8 even does not expect the right move 36...f5
I do not know if I chose the right move but I analyzed
36.a4 f5 37.exf5 g4 and my conclusion was that white is probably losing
and programs do not understand it.
Maybe 36.a4 f5 37.Ba7 is better but I also did not like it
and I decided to play 36.Ba7.
I have no time to analyze it and if people are interested they can try to
analyze and give their opinion.
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.