Author: David Dahlem
Date: 15:24:39 01/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 14:38:29, Sune Larsson wrote: >On January 01, 2006 at 14:03:15, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On January 01, 2006 at 02:53:42, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 2005 at 21:17:47, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >>> >>>>One possibility is that rybka does not have specific endgame knowledge, but its >>>>general chess knowledge is quite applicable to the endgame? >>>> >>>>It seems like rybka is one version away from being the best at analyzing >>>>endgames? or am i too optimistic? >>> >>> >>> Exciting future to come...Rybka is the crowned bullet master from rumours >>> I've heard....so relatively better in endings at short time control.... >>> relatively - compared to other engines. >>> >>> But I close my eyes for games in blitz tempo. Two games from the pos 1 >>> in the suite - 40 moves in 5 minutes - were enough. Rook ending and the >>> level of play was...huh... not good... >>> >>> With some more 40-games matches, using the endgame suite, we can study more >>> details - which engine seems to handle the rook ending best? How about >>> the theme "good knight vs bad bishop"? etc. Interesting. >>> >>> >>> To keep in mind - or on paper - the following positions are documented and >>> verfied *won* for white/black - and highly unbalanced - even if some engines >>> don't recognize it... >>> >>> >>> Won positions: N:o 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 >>> >>> Draw position: N:o 16 (black draws with activity only - 1.- Rd2!) >>> >>> Slightly better for black: N:o 20 (the double rook ending by Andersson) >>> >>> Unclear position: N:o 18 (the bishop pair vs pair of knights + an extra pawn) >>> >>> >>> 1-9 are the NunnE positions. >>> >>> >>> /S >> >>I think there is an error in position 2. It appears the white king has been >>moved as suggested as a possible move by Nunn in his annotation. But it's not >>the correct position in his endgame suite. :-) >> >>Regards >>Dave > > > We sure need observant eyes around here ;-) This doesn't change the outcome > of games played - since 1.Kd4 is the obvious move for white - but it is > corrected! > > /S Yes, i understand Kd4 is an obvious move, but that's the purpose of positions of this type, to test how engines play. Maybe Rybka or some other engine can find something different. :-) And altering a Nunn position and still calling it a Nunn position, well, just doesn't seem right to me. :-) Regards Dave > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On December 31, 2005 at 17:02:13, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>I played 60/5 level match from Sune's positions: >>>>> >>>>>1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit 0½½0½½½11½½½01100110½0½010½½½½1½½½111½½0 20.5/40 >>>>>2 Fritz 9 1½½1½½½00½½½10011001½1½101½½½½0½½½000½½1 19.5/40 >>>>> >>>>>Hmm?!?!? "No endgame knowledge". Quite modest! >>>>> >>>>>Jouni
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.