Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:29:40 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 03:25:07, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 21, 2005 at 02:38:09, Mike Hood wrote: > >>The following position is a better example of the usefulness of endgame >>tablebases. The only winning move for White is Rg6. I allowed Fruit 2.1 (without >>tablebases) 10 minutes for a search. > >This example show the negative value of EGTB > >How much time does your program need to find Kxb3 that is the only practical >chance to save the game Black is dead lost. Why would this matter??? > >[D]8/8/R7/8/1k6/1B1P4/6b1/K7 b - - 0 1 > >Fruit2.2.1 with all the 4 piece tablebases and 3 vs 2 tablebases cannot find it >in few minutes > >New game, >8/8/R7/8/1k6/1B1P4/6b1/K7 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fruit 2.2.1: > >1...Kxb3 > +- (2.51) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >1...Kxb3 > +- (#73) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >1...Bf3 2.Kb2 > +- (5.85) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >1...Kb5 2.Bc4+ Kc5 > +- (5.68) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >1...Kc3 2.Rg6 > +- (5.62) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >1...Kc3 2.Rg6 Kxb3 3.Rxg2 > +- (5.64) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Rh6 > +- (6.01) Depth: 4/9 00:00:00 >1...Kb5 2.Bc4+ Kc5 3.Kb2 Bf3 > +- (5.96) Depth: 4/9 00:00:00 >1...Bf3 2.Kb2 Kc5 3.Ra5+ Kd4 > +- (5.95) Depth: 4/9 00:00:00 >1...Kc5 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Ra5+ Kd4 > +- (5.91) Depth: 4/9 00:00:00 >1...Bf1 2.Bc4 Kc3 3.Ra3+ Kd4 > +- (5.78) Depth: 4/9 00:00:00 >1...Bf1 2.Bc4 Kc3 3.Ra3+ Kd4 4.Kb2 > +- (5.98) Depth: 5/11 00:00:00 >1...Kc5 2.Kb2 Kd4 3.Rg6 Bf3 > +- (5.95) Depth: 5/11 00:00:00 >1...Kc5 2.Kb2 Kd4 3.Rd6+ Kc5 4.Rf6 Bc6 5.Rf5+ Kd4 > +- (5.96) Depth: 6/13 00:00:00 13kN >1...Bf1 2.Bc4 Kc3 3.Ra3+ Kd4 4.Kb2 Bg2 > +- (5.93) Depth: 6/13 00:00:00 16kN >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bf1 3.Be4 Be2 4.Rc6+ Kd4 > +- (5.81) Depth: 6/13 00:00:00 20kN >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bf1 3.Ra3+ Kd4 4.Be4 Be2 5.Kb2 > +- (5.93) Depth: 7/13 00:00:00 26kN, tb=6 >1...Bf1 2.Bc4 Kc3 3.Ra3+ Kd4 4.Kb2 Be2 5.Kc2 > +- (5.86) Depth: 7/15 00:00:00 32kN, tb=6 >1...Bf1 2.Bc4 Kc3 3.Ra3+ Kd4 4.Kb2 Be2 5.Kc2 Bf3 > +- (5.84) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 48kN, tb=6 >1...Bf1 2.Bc2 Kc3 3.Rc6+ Kd2 4.Kb2 Bg2 5.Rb6 Ke3 6.Kc3 > +- (5.88) Depth: 9/16 00:00:00 77kN, tb=6 >1...Bf1 2.Bc2 Kc3 3.Rc6+ Kd4 4.Rc4+ Ke3 5.Re4+ Kd2 6.Kb2 Bg2 7.Re5 Bf3 > +- (5.95) Depth: 10/19 00:00:00 139kN, tb=6 >1...Bf1 2.Kb2 Be2 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.Kc3 Bf3 5.d4+ Kd6 6.Ra6+ Kc7 7.d5 Be4 8.Kd4 > +- (6.49) Depth: 11/23 00:00:00 525kN, tb=7 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Be4 Bd7 4.Ra3+ Kd4 5.Ra5 Bc8 6.Ra4+ Ke3 7.Kb2 Be6 > +- (6.04) Depth: 11/23 00:00:00 625kN, tb=7 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Be4 Bd7 4.Kb1 Bg4 5.Rc6+ Kd4 6.Rg6 Bh5 7.Rg7 Be2 > +- (6.17) Depth: 12/23 00:00:00 736kN, tb=30 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Be4 Bd7 4.Kb1 Bg4 5.Rc6+ Kd4 6.Rg6 Bh5 7.Rd6+ Ke3 8.Rf6 Bg4 > +- (6.14) Depth: 13/23 00:00:01 983kN, tb=38 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Be4 Bd7 4.Kb1 Bg4 5.Ra3+ Kd4 6.Kc2 Be6 7.Ra4+ Ke3 8.Ra6 Bf7 >9.Kc3 > +- (6.24) Depth: 14/23 00:00:01 1316kN, tb=49 >1...Kc3 2.Bd5 Bh3 3.Be4 Bd7 4.Kb1 Bg4 5.Ra3+ Kd4 6.Kc2 Be6 7.Ra4+ Ke3 8.Ra6 Bc4 >9.dxc4 Kxe4 > +- (6.27) Depth: 15/25 00:00:01 1902kN, tb=74 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.d4+ Kb6 5.d5 Bh3 6.Kb2 Kc5 7.Ra6 Kb5 8.Rf6 Kc5 >9.d6 Bd7 10.Kc3 > +- (6.61) Depth: 16/31 00:00:07 8414kN, tb=607 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.d4+ Kb6 5.d5 Bh3 6.Kb2 Kc5 7.Ra6 Bd7 8.Kc3 Bb5 >9.Rf6 Bd7 10.d6 Bc6 > +- (6.74) Depth: 17/31 00:00:09 11322kN, tb=929 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.d4+ Kb6 5.d5 Bh3 6.Kb2 Kc5 7.Ra6 Bd7 8.Kc3 Bb5 >9.Rf6 Be8 10.d6 Bd7 11.Bc4 > +- (6.77) Depth: 18/31 00:00:12 15564kN, tb=1536 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.d4+ Kd6 5.Ra6+ Kc7 6.d5 Kb7 7.d6 Bc6 8.Bc4 Bd7 >9.Kb2 Bf5 10.Kc3 Bd7 11.Kd4 Bf5 12.Ra1 > +- (7.17) Depth: 19/41 00:00:19 24312kN, tb=3136 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kb4 3.Kb2 Kc5 4.d4+ Kd6 5.Ra6+ Kc7 6.d5 Kb7 7.d6 Bc6 8.Ra1 Kb6 >9.Be6 Kb7 10.Kc3 Bf3 11.Kd4 Kb6 12.Rb1+ Kc6 > +- (7.64) Depth: 20/53 00:00:46 57204kN, tb=11397 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.Ra2 Bf1 5.Be6 Kd6 6.Rf2 Kc7 7.Rxf1 Kd6 8.Bb3 Kc6 >9.d4 Kb5 10.Kb2 Kb6 11.Bd5 Kc7 12.Kc3 > +- (10.03) Depth: 21/59 00:01:05 81560kN, tb=15074 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.Ra2 Bf1 5.Be6 Kd6 6.Rf2 Bh3 7.Bxh3 Ke5 8.d4+ Ke4 >9.Rd2 Kd5 10.Rd1 Ke4 11.d5 Ke3 12.d6 Ke2 13.Rc1 > +- (14.06) Depth: 22/59 00:01:41 127204kN, tb=28020 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.Ra2 Bf1 5.Rf2 Bh3 6.Be6 Kb4 7.Bxh3 Kc3 8.d4 Kc4 >9.Rd2 Kd5 10.Bg2+ Kd6 11.d5 Kd7 12.d6 Ke8 13.Bc6+ Kd8 14.d7 Kc7 15.d8Q+ Kxc6 > +- (15.58) Depth: 23/59 00:02:00 151435kN, tb=33342 >1...Kc3 2.Ra3 Kd4 3.Ra4+ Kc5 4.Ra2 Bf1 5.Rf2 Bh3 6.Be6 Kb4 7.Bxh3 Kc3 8.d4 Kc4 >9.Be6+ Kb5 10.Rc2 Kb4 11.Rc4+ Kb5 12.d5 Kb6 13.d6 Kb7 14.d7 Ka6 15.d8Q > +- (18.81) Depth: 24/69 00:03:10 238416kN, tb=45277 > >(, 21.11.2005) > >latest private Movei with the same tablebases has no problem because it >translates long mates to a static score that is not mate but material advantage >so it shows 2.54 pawns advantage for white(note that long mate may be translated >to draw by the 50 move rule so I think that it is a bad idea to translate long >mates by nalimov tablebases to mate at least in the case of mate in more than 50 >moves). > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.