Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 03:34:08 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 00:49:18, Howard Exner wrote: >On January 05, 1999 at 22:24:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On January 05, 1999 at 20:55:11, Matthew Herman wrote: >> >>>The position 8/7k/3R4/7P/6K1/4b3/8/8 w - - 0 1 between Tiger and Rebel10 leads >>>to a won position in 11 moves as reported by the ken thompson egtb. >>> >>>Tiger might or might not find it but there is a definite win. >> >>Of course it's a win, but the question is that Tiger won't find it. Take a look >>at the moves before and you'll see that it doesn't know how to proceed. After >>the tournament is finished I'll replay the game from this position. > >Here is some analysis from an endgame book if others would like to test >their programs. > >1. Rg6 Bh6 (now the position reached is found in the book "Rook vs Minor >Piece Endings", by Yuri Averbakh) The game is between B.Guretzky-Cornitz >way back in 1863! The moves continue ... > >2. Kf5 Bd2 3. h6! Be3 (if Bxh6 then Kf6 ... Kf7 sets up a win by the double >threat of mate and winning the bishop. This, the only winning technique, >could prove challenging for non tablebase programs as you have already >mentioned). 4. Rg7+ Kxh6 5. Rg6+ Kh7 ( if Kh5 then Rg3) 6. Kf6 Bd4+ >7. Kf7 Ba7 8. Ra6 and so on. > >In playing over the your tournamant games I'm noticing more and more >that the games are lasting longer between equally matched software. >If one program would break away from the pack in regards to more >advanced endgame technique then I'll wager that program would have a hefty >lead in something like the SSDF list. I agree completely. The other way around: a program with relatively week endings will miss many points, as I have noticed quite frequently. Enrique
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.