Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:31:28 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 15:52:06, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>On March 11, 2003 at 15:27:17, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>No, I have a question nevertheless.
>Did you analyse the move 31.b5.
>Looks promising 31...Ne5 32.f4 for example.
>
>Michael
I admit that I did not analyze it.
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.