Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:08:03 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2003 at 01:08:48, Terry McCracken wrote: >On May 28, 2003 at 00:10:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 27, 2003 at 19:11:49, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>After being completely out-played for the entire game, and with imminent defeat >>>on the horizon, Kasparov resigned the 2nd game rather than drag out the >>>humiliation. But Deep Blue had made a critical error, allowing Kasparov a >>>perpetual check. The analysis is quite deep and extends slightly beyond Deep >>>Blue's search horizon. And, apparently, also Kasparov's. Kasparov's team, which >>>included Grandmaster Yuri Dokhoian and Frederic Friedel, were faced with the >>>delicate task of revealing the news to Kasparov. They waited until lunch the >>>next day, after he had had a nice glass of wine to drink. After they revealed >>>the hidden drawing resource, Kasparov sunk into deep thought (no pun intended) >>>for five minutes before he conceded that he had missed a draw. He later claimed >>>that this was the first time he had resigned a drawn position. >>> >>>Six years later, which program can see the draw in the famous 2nd game of the >>>rematch? >>> >>>Jorge >> >> >>NO program sees this. It is about 60 plies deep. It is unlikely that a >>program will see it for quite some time to come, in fact... > >Bob, is it possible to give a programme just enough knowledge when this kind >of position occurs that a type of quiescense search and extensions is employed >to seek for perpetuals checks, thus reducing the number of plys substantially, >to complete such a task? Of course it is possible to do it. I will never say about a position that no program can solve it when I am unable to test all the programs. Note that there is no forced draw in the meaning that white can avoid repetition and get a position with equal material. If a program evaluates that position as slightly better for white then it is not going to see 0.00 score. Note also that the task of solving this position is different than the task of playing better and the fact that a program can solve the position does not mean that it plays better. I believe that it is possible to do both things with the right programming I still did not implement the right programming in movei and I have more important things to do so I do not expect movei to do it today but I believe that it will be able to do it in the future. 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.