Author: blass uri
Date: 08:43:37 07/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 17:06:44, Robin Smith wrote:
>On July 02, 1999 at 06:53:52, blass uri wrote:
>
>>
>>On July 02, 1999 at 03:30:04, Robin Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On July 01, 1999 at 23:49:48, Ted Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>>>Robin,
>>>> Thanks for a fascinating post with regard to positions in the 11th USCCC where
>>>>you believe your opponents relied on a computer for a faulty evaluation.
>>>> This would be a very interesting and relevant test case for us,if you would
>>>>care to share several of these positions with us (naturally without names).
>>>>We are dealing here with very strong correspondence play, so can see what of
>>>>errors of positional judgement computers make.
>>>> (I was unaware that computer use is legal in the USCCC, but it is logical,
>>>>since the USCCC is an ICCF sponsored event, and computers are legal under ICCF).
>>>> In view of the fact that computer use was legal in these games, then your
>>>>opponents, assuming they were consulting with computers, were acting ethically
>>>>and legally (though perhaps unwisely), and there is no reason not to disclose
>>>>these positions.
>>>
>>>Sure, here are a couple. Of course I don't KNOW how my opponents generated
>>>moves, it's just a theory. Interestingly the errors are more tactical than
>>>positional, but the lines are pretty deep. The 1st one really looks computer
>>>horizon effect. The 2nd game was published in the November 1998 Chess. Modern
>>>computers/programs probably do better than at the time these games were played.
>>>
>>>[Event "US11F"]
>>>[Date "1995-1998"]
>>>[White "Smith, Robin"]
>>>[Black "Thompson, Paul"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "B89"]
>>>[Annotator "Robin Smith"]
>>>
>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 Be7 8.
>>>Qe2 a6 9. O-O-O O-O 10. Bb3 Qc7 11. g4 Nxd4 12. Rxd4 Nd7 13. g5 Nc5 14. Rg1 b5
>>>15. e5 dxe5 16. Rh4 Nxb3+ 17. axb3 g6 18. Qf3!? {White gambles on a strong
>>>sacrificial attack that should be a draw with correct defense by Black.} Bb7 19.
>>>Qh3 h5 20. Rxh5 gxh5 21.Qxh5 Bf3??
>>>
>>>Black is now lost. Computers like this move because, being up a whole rook,
>>>they don't like to settle for a draw. 21... Bc5! is the only move after which
>>>22. Bxc5 Qxc5 23. g6 Kg7!=draw
>>
>>I do not think that computers like this move if you give them many hours.
>>I tried the position with Junior5.4 and it found Bc5 in less than 10 minutes.
>>I do not know the exact time because I did other things at the same time and the
>>computer may be slowed down.
>>It evaluates Bc5 as 0.52 pawns for white and gives the same line
>>22.Bxc5 Qxc5 23.g6 Kg7...
>>
>>Uri
>
>The move 21. ...Bf3?? was played several years ago. At that time computers were
>not as good as today.
I gave Genius3 on pentium100 the position and after 87 minutes and 2 seconds it
does not like Bf3(evaluation -0.36) but expects Qxf3 instead of Qh6.
It is now considers after 2 hours Bc5.
Also, after 21. ...Bc5 22.Bxc5 Qxc5 23.g6 Kg7 I am
>surprised Junior5.4 gives a White advantage. I believe that the best plan for
>White is to 3 repeat the position with perpetual checks. What does Junior 5.4
>give as White's best continuation after you force the moves through 23. ...Kg7?
white can have a strong attack and Junior evaluates the attack+the bishop at b7
as better than the rook.
I think that Junior is correct in this evaluation.
I gave it to play against itself(time control 270 minutes for 40 moves) and it
played
24.Qh7+ Kf6 25.Qh4+ Kg7 26.b4 Qb6 27.gxf7+ Kxf7 28.Qh7+ Ke8 29.Rg7 Qd6
30.Rxb7 Rxf2 31.b3 e4 32.Qg6+ Kd8 33.Nxe4 Qf4+ 34.Kb2 Rxc2+
with evaluation 4.10 pawns for white.
(it saw 3.98 pawns for white when it played 33.Nxe4)
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.