Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:25:39 07/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2004 at 12:12:55, chandler yergin wrote: >On July 29, 2004 at 19:10:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 29, 2004 at 18:44:47, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2004 at 13:13:28, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 29, 2004 at 08:04:48, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 28, 2004 at 20:01:58, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 28, 2004 at 19:56:03, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Intersting position and mis-evaluation by Fritz. Fritz has trouble with many >>>>>>>rook pawn and wrong color bishop positions. Can you please give how the game >>>>>>>ended? After a5 it should still be a draw, but White can't wait too much longer >>>>>>>to get to the h1 square. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Robin >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?379533 >>>>>> >>>>>>If the game ended that way then it seems that the players clearly did not use >>>>>>Fritz to help them. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Burkett DID Use Fritz! >>>>>That's all he has, and I am in daily contact with him. >>>>>His annotations after the game, inserted in the notes, was also by Fritz. >>>>> >>>>>The Full game, and analysis is posted in my reply to Robin. >>>>>Chan >>>> >>>> >>>>If I am not wrong Burkett was black when white blundered by missing a6 with a >>>>draw. > >Correct Burkett was Black and White blundered. > >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Burkett was white! > > > >>>Theyn both missed the Draw... so did Fritz! >>>That's my point.. >> >>based on the pgn he was black > >Of course..sorry! >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?379533 >> >>It is not important if black missed the draw but if white missed the draw. > >It's important that Black missed it, because he was the one that annotated the >game. > >White missed the Draw, as originally Posted. >Missed it twice in fact. >Black also missed it, as it was not mentioned in the original game Notes, but >added after, when I pointed it out to the players. > > >> >>Fritz could find the drawing move Kc4 instead of a6. > >It didn't, that's the point! > >>White could not find it so the fact is that white played worse than Fritz. > >The point of the original Post! >Neither player OR Fritz found it! > > >> >>The fact that Fritz could not see the draw is not important to justify mistakes >>because it could find the correct moves. > >Well it Didn't! It did I already posted analysis by Fritz8 when it could find Kc4(not with a draw score) see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?379580 > >I think it is extremly important that Fritz did not see the Draw either time! I think that programs that see the draw may also have illusions about draws when there is no draw. It is not safe to evaluate king near the right corner and wrong bishop as a draw because the weaker side may lose by zugzwang when he must play with the g pawn and the pawn go from file h to file g. It was not relevant in the game because there was no pawn in the g file but it is only to demonstrate that the problem is not so easy from programming point and programs that say 0.00 also may be wrong in different positions. >Players relied on it's analysis, rather than thinking on their own, and >missed it. > >Robin also pointed out the Fritz problem in this game, although Crafty, Hiarchs, >and other Engines found it immediately. >Why are you defending Fritz? >This is a good Test Position for Engines! I am defending Fritz because Fritz found the right move Kc4 instead of a6 that was played in the game based on analysis that I posted and I am not sure if engines that show 0.00 will not also show 0.00 in positions when the weaker side is losing by zugzwang. Fritz is at least better than Movei that cannot find Kc4 and suggest the move that was played in the game(a6) after half an hour. 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.