Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:28:18 02/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2004 at 18:44:14, Torstein Hall wrote: >On February 06, 2004 at 20:04:48, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On February 06, 2004 at 19:33:22, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2004 at 19:18:54, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On February 06, 2004 at 13:48:48, Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz wrote: >>>> >>>>>This endgame study can be game following the sequence >>>>> >>>>>1.Bd1 g1Q 2.Bxa4 Qc1 3.Bxd7 h5 4.Be8 h4 5.Ba4 Line >>>>> >>>>>[d] 8/3p4/p6p/k2N3B/p7/K6p/PP4pP/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Many engines (Fritz 8, Hiarcs 8, Ruffian 1.01) cannot win this endgame, probably >>>>>due to the well known null-move problem for extreme and rare positions such as >>>>>this. >>>>> >>>>>They just don't find 5. Ba4 >>>>> >>>>>Try your engine after 4...,h4 >>>>> >>>>>[d]8/3p4/p6p/k2N3B/p7/K6p/PP4pP/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>All the above mentioned engines play 5.Bd7 and get a draw instead of winning. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jaime >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Chess Tiger X: 1.15 second on PIII-M 933MHz (Dell X200), 6Mb HT: >>>> >>>>N14 0.33s Bd1 g1=Q Bxa4 Qc1 Bxd7 h5 Be8 h4 Bd7 Qxb2+ Kxb2 0.00 >>>>N15 0.66s Bd1 g1=Q Bxa4 Qc1 Bxd7 h5 Be8 h4 Bd7 Qxb2+ Kxb2 +0.90 >>>>N15 1.15s Bd1 g1=Q Bxa4 Qc1 Bxd7 h5 Be8 h4 Ba4 Qxb2+ Kxb2 Kxa4 Kc... +3.26 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>The key question to be answered is: >>> >>>"What is there about Chess Tiger X that is different from the other engines >>>mentioned which accounts for the fact that they could not find the move but >>>TigerX could? Is the "null-move problem" not applicable to TigerX or is there >>>some other reason? >>> >>>Bob D. >> >> >> >>I have worked a lot on zugzwang detection in Tiger 15, and it has been improved >>further in the new version (CT X). I think that's the answer. It's simply an >>area I've been working on. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >Can I asume you belive there is quite a bit of extra strength to pick up for a >chess engine fixing this problem? I belived this occured pretty rarely in most >games. > >Torstein I would like to respond to that, at the risk of saying something stupid. My intuition tells me that "bugs" are caused by errors in the mental processes of the programmer at the time of programming. Generally, if the programmer is "off" for a few minutes, he may not only create the bug in question but also create other problems for which he/she may not be aware. Generally, fixing errors in programming may have more far-reaching benefits than just fixing the specific detected problem. This implies that programmers should strive for profection and should revisit any segment of code in which programming errors were made. The "good" programmer is a sort-of "Mr. Clean." If the programmer messed-up during one programming session, then the programming products of that entire session are in doubt. It's best not to drink or use drugs when programming. : ) IMHO. Bob D.
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.