Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 00:37:53 07/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 1999 at 20:24:55, Robin Smith wrote:
>On July 03, 1999 at 11:43:37, blass uri wrote:
>
>>
>>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
>
>Interesting. I went into this whole line figuring I had at least a draw, and
>after 21 ... Bf3? I never looked any further at possible white wins. Now I am
>intrigued. I think I will analyze this again. If white can force a win against
>all defenses this game could have real opening signifigance.
>
>You also mention best hardware/software at the time could have found 21. ...
>Bc5. You are probably correct, but I obviously don't "know" a computer was
>being used, just that the move Bf3 seems computer like to me. Also, it is still
>possible that my opponant was using a computer but not the "best"
>hardware/software combination available at the time.
Robin, I made some analyses based in the line presented for Uri, with
the aid of Fritz5.32, will be that blacks obtain to draw?
Instead of 26... Qb6, I believe that 26... Qc4 can be better for black,
look:
26... Qc4 27. gxf7+ (27. Rg4 Qf1+ 28. Nd1 Bf3 29. Qh7+ (29. gxf7+ Bxg4 - +)
29... Kf6 30. Qh4+ =) 27... Kxf7 28. Qh7+ Ke8 29. Qxb7 (29. Rg7
Bf3 30. Re7+ Kd8 31. Rd7+ Kc8 32. Qg7 Qf4+ 33. Kb1 Qf6 - +) Rd8 unclear
In the correspondence game, the player who has the aid of the computer,
does not have to leave the program analyzing much time one move,
the correct is to force the program to play one move chosen for the
proper player and to follow the line. The explanation for this is that
with some plys more in one determined line, the program has a much more
accurate evaluation. Other lines must be tested, it's very laborious.
I played postal chess for ten years, and arrived to dispute the semifinals
of the Brazilian championship of postal chess.
Paulo Soares, from Brazil
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.