Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:44:58 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 12:19:48, Amir Ban wrote:
>On June 28, 2005 at 15:37:12, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>
>>On June 27, 2005 at 16:14:26, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On June 27, 2005 at 13:19:49, Peter Skinner wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 27, 2005 at 10:56:28, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It was not a non stable version but a version with bugs.
>>>>>The reply to your question why was already given.
>>>>>
>>>>>SMK did not know that it is buggy version.
>>>>
>>>>In fact in a thread below Sandro stated it was a beta version that had bugs. And
>>>>that it was 150 elo weaker. One _has_ to assume that they _knew_ it was beta,
>>>>and that it had bugs.
>>>
>>>No
>>>
>>>I believe that
>>>Stefan believed that it is the best version that he had in that time.
>>>He made some change that he believed to be an improvement and he did not notice
>>>that he deleted some part.
>>>
>>>I think that this was a failure of both stefan and sandro.
>>
>>No, I did my best to convince Stefan, but he believed in the result of the 2004
>>WCCC and on the blitz tests.
>>
>>As you know I look the programs play and evaluate them depending on how they
>>play and other things I have learned in more than 28 years experience on
>>computer chess and chess programs.
>>
>>Most programmers believe in tests and on statistics. I believe in what I
>>see...and how I do it...
>>
>>I have been able several times to estimate almost correctly how much a new
>>version was better out of a few games.
>>I already told you, but you do not believe this.
>>I do not care if people believe me or not. I get fun on doing this and I'll do
>>it until I will get fun.
>>
>>It was my system against std. testing systems and once again I was correct.
>>
>>I tell you another secret:
>>
>>do you remember when we lost to Junior in 2001 WCCC (I think) a won game only
>>because the program understimated a passed pawn?
>>
>
>What passed pawn? You mean king safety. This should refresh your memory.
Here are the comments to refresh your memory. The king safety comes at the very
end.
The problem is not correct use of passed pawns and pieces exchange on these
situations.
>
>[Event "WMCCC"]
>[Site "Maastricht"]
>[Date "2001.08.22"]
>[Round "6"]
>[White "Deep Junior 7"]
>[Black "Shredder"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "B84"]
>[Annotator "Deep Fritz (10s)"]
>[PlyCount "160"]
>[EventDate "2001.??.??"]
>
>{B84: Sicilian Scheveningen: 6 Be2 a6, lines without early Be3} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3
>d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. Be2 Qc7 8. f4 b5 9. a3 Bb7 10.
>Bf3 Nbd7 11. Nde2 Rc8 {last book move} 12. O-O Be7 13. Kh1 O-O 14. b4 Nb6 15.
>Qd3 Rfd8 16. f5 {This push gains space} 16... Nc4 {
>Menacing. Black fights for the Initiative} 17. fxe6 fxe6 18. Bd4 Rd7 19. Bxf6
>Bxf6 (19... gxf6 $2 20. Bg4 f5 21. exf5 $18) 20. Bg4 Re7 21. Qh3 Rce8 22. a4
>bxa4 23. Bh5 Rf8 24. Bg4 Bc8 25. Rxa4 Ree8 26. Raa1 g6 27. Qg3 Qb6 28. Bh3 (28.
>Rfb1 $5 $17) 28... Qxb4 29. Qd3 Bg7 30. Rfb1 Qc5 31. Na4 Qc7 32. c3 Rf6 33. Nd4
>Ref8 34. Nf3 Rf4 35. Nd4 Re8 36. Rf1 Rxf1+ 37. Rxf1 Bd7 38. Ra1 Kh8 39. Qf1 g5
>40. Qd1 (40. Qb1 h5 41. g3 g4 $19) 40... Ne5 (40... g4 $5 41. Qxg4 Bxd4 42.
>cxd4 Bxa4 43. Qf3 $19) 41. g3 g4 42. Bg2 a5 43. Qc2 Rb8 44. Qc1 Nc4 45. Qe1 Bh6
>46. h3 (46. Qf1 Qc8 47. h4 Ne3 $19) 46... Ne3 47. hxg4 e5 (47... Nxg2 $6 48.
>Kxg2 Kg8 49. Qd1 $17) 48. Nf5 Bxf5 $1 {a forceful and devastating end} (48...
>Nxg4 $6 49. Nxh6 Nxh6 50. Qd2 $19) (48... Nxg2 $6 49. Kxg2 Bf8 50. Qe2 $17) 49.
>exf5
White has a passed pawn in f5 and black in e5. Still I think black should have
played better before.
(49. gxf5 Nc2 {A double attack}) 49... Nc2 {Theme: Double Attack} 50. Qd1
>Nxa1 51. Qxa1 e4 52. Qd1 e3 53. Bf3 Bg7 54. Kg2 Re8 55. Kh3 (55. Qf1 Bf6 $19)
>55... Qc4 (55... Bxc3 $6 56. Qc1 Rc8 57. Qxe3 $19) 56. Be2 Qc6 57. g5 {
>White gets in control} 57... Be5 (57... Bxc3 $6 58. Nxc3 Qxc3 59. Qxd6 $19) 58.
>Nb2 d5 59. Nd3 Bxc3 60. Nf4 {White prepares the advance g6} 60... d4 61. Kh4 (
>61. Kh2 Qd7 62. Bd3 Qf7 $19) 61... a4 (61... h6 {makes it even easier for Black
>} 62. Qb3 hxg5+ 63. Kxg5 $19) 62. f6 Rb8 (62... Re5 63. Qb1 d3 64. Bxd3 $15)
>63. Bf3 {Threatening mate: Bxc6} 63... Qb5 (63... Qd7 64. g6 Rg8 65. g7+ Rxg7
>66. fxg7+ Kxg7 67. Bd5 $15) 64. g6!!
black has 3 passed pawns and white only one, still black is lost. Black did not
managed to make it possible to push one passed pawn further or force white to
exchange pieces (mainly the queen) and use the passed pawns in a better ending.
Black strategically lost the game and now a tactical combination ends the game.
$17 {Threatening mate... how?} 64... Rd8?? loses more quickly $4
>{forfeits the clear win} (64... Rg8 65. Bd5 e2 66. g7+ Rxg7 67. fxg7+ Kxg7 68.
>Qxe2 Qxe2 69. Nxe2 Kf6 $11) 65. g7+ $18 Kg8 66. Qc2 Rd6 67. Qa2+ Qb3 68. Bd5+
>Rxd5 69. Nxd5 Kf7 (69... Qxa2 {hoping against hope} 70. Ne7+ Kf7 71. g8=Q+ Kxf6
>72. Qxa2 Kxe7 73. Qxa4 Kd6 $18) 70. Qg2 d3 (70... Qb8 71. Qe4 (71. Nxc3 $6 {
>is a useless try} 71... Kxf6 72. Qd5 Kxg7 73. Qxd4+ Kg8 $18) 71... Bb4 72. Nxb4
>$18) 71. Qf3 Qb8 (71... Qb4+ 72. Nxb4 Bxf6+ 73. Qxf6+ Kxf6 74. g8=Q d2 75. Qd8+
>Kf7 76. Qd5+ Kg7 77. Qe5+ Kf7 78. Nd5 h5 79. Qf6+ Kg8 80. Ne7+ Kh7 81. Qf7+ Kh6
>82. Nf5#) 72. Qh5+ Ke6 73. Nxc3 e2 74. Qg4+ Kf7 75. Kg5 h6+ 76. Kxh6 e1=Q 77.
>Qg6+ Ke6 78. f7+ Kd7 {The mate threat is Qh1} 79. Qxd3+ Kc7 80. Qc4+ Kb6 1-0
>
>Amir
Sandro
>
>
>>Well, just before the 2004 WCCC I told Stefan I was worrying about our program
>>(Shreder 6 preliminary version) not handling the passed pawns correctly in many
>>positions...he said that I was exaggerating a little on this...who was correct?
>>
>>Even a very smart guy like Stefan is sometimes difficult to convince and only
>>evidence can make him change his mind.
>>
>>I do not like to have to demostrate things as I say things only when I am sure,
>>no matter how I do to get these info.
>>My system may be an old system, but I like it and so I do not want to change it
>>as has been correct so far...
>>
>>>
>>>Sandro could probably do a better job in explaining stefan that Shredder is
>>>weaker by showing him positions that the new shredder is weaker than the old
>>>shredder.
>>
>>You should know that programmers are not so easy to convince when they like to
>>believe in something...
>>
>>Sandro
>>
>>>
>>>If we want to talk about examples then I think that the fail low of shredder
>>>against falcon in WCCC could be a good example and based on my memory commercial
>>>shredder is clearly better in solving the fail low.
>>>
>>>I read in the israeli chess newspaper that shredder needed almost an hour to
>>>solve some fail low in that game and Falcon used that time to find the reason
>>>that shredder failed low.
>>>
>>>Maybe Falcon could not find some good move in case that shredder played it
>>>faster.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Junior is a positional program?
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is. Junior and Hiarcs are probably the best positional chess programs
>>>>around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I do not believe it for a moment.
>>>>>Junior is a fast searcher.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. Faster search = deeper depth = more positional play.
>>>>
>>>>>Fast searcher cannot have a lot of knowledge in it's evaluation so Junior >cannot be a positional program.
>>>>
>>>>Programs can become positional without knowledge but by deeper search. This has
>>>>been stated many times on this very board.
>>>
>>>deeper search can help to find better positional moves but I cannot define fast
>>>searcher as a positional program and there are a lot of things that you cannot
>>>find by deeper search.
>>>
>>>For example if you do not understand the fortress concept then there are cases
>>>when no search can help you to avoid a draw by fortress.
>>>
>>>Shredder shows some understanding of the fortess concept and there are fortress
>>>position that it evaluates as 0.00 or close to it(of course this understanding
>>>can be improved and there are a lot of fortress positions that shredder does not
>>>understand but at least stefan tried to do something in that direction).
>>>
>>>Junior shows no understanding of the fortess concept.
>>>
>>>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.