Author: Peter Hegger
Date: 10:18:50 09/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1999 at 06:26:24, Paulo Soares wrote: >On September 06, 1999 at 00:07:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 05, 1999 at 23:48:31, Paulo Soares wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 1999 at 12:49:02, Peter Hegger wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 1999 at 04:38:57, Paulo Soares wrote: >>>> >>>>(Snip) >>>>> >>>>Independent the problem happened with Rebel, I think GM >>>>>Hoffman had the merit of choosing an opening that the programs >>>>>have difficulty to play. >>>>> >>>>>Paulo >>>> >>>>I watched the game at ICC yesterday and the general consensus among the >>>>spectators was that playing a Benko was an *awfully* risky undertaking against a >>>>computer. I have to agree. A healthy Rebel 10-5 that wasn't playing lemons like >>>>Ra2 (forget which move) or the terrible Rg4, just to name a couple, wouldn't >>>>have lost the extra p quite so quickly IMHO. >>>>Full credit to Hoffman though. He pounced on Rebel's errors swiftly and >>>>accurately. >>>>I hope to see them paired up again sometime. >>>>Regards >>>>Peter >>> >>>The Benko Gambit is usually played for draw by blacks, and great part of the >>>resulting positions of this defense are difficult for programs evaluation. >>>Hiarcs7.32 also plays 19.Ra2. >>>My point in this subject is: coulded any program draw with a GM in the line >>>that was played? My opinion it is that any program would lose this game for >>>a GM, unless there was an arduous preparation in the program's book. >>>Paulo >> >>I think Rebel could well have won this game... I saw evals of around +1 for >>several moves, but then fishy things started to happen. I don't think white >>was in danger of losing this at all, until hardware problems produced bogus >>moves. White might not have been able to win, maybe, but it was certainly >>not going to lose (I don't think) assuming it didn't make some gross mistake >>later on... >> >>The GM made his share of mistakes too... > >Ed said that when Rebel was out of the book, after 15..Rb7 the machine crashed. >So that of there in before it becomes difficult to do an analysis of Rebel's >moves, but I made some tests with other programs, and I think that they don't >analyze well the position, because the evaluation of the candidates moves are >very similar. >The first move played by white after the opening was 16. Qc1, a doubtful >movement(I read now in a Ed's post some words that confirms this). 17. Bh6, >19. Ra2 and 23.f4 don't also seemed good moves. >I think that soon after 23.f4 Rebel was already in an inferior >situation, and agaisnt a GM this can means a lose. >The book used was the same as it was used by Rebel in the World >Championship in Paderborn, would not be very important for Rebel use a >specific opening book for the games against GMs? Only a question. > >Paulo Hi Paulo I still think it was risky to gambit a pawn, especially when it gives white a passer on the a-file. Against another human perhaps it would work, but against a computer I think a QGD or Queens Indian type set-up might have been safer. That's just my opinion though. If you don't mind could you post the other programs evals on 16 Qc1, 17 Bh6 and 19 Ra2? I don't have any programs strong enough to do a trustworthy analysis. I'm interested to know how the other programs would have fared out of the opening. Thanks. Peter
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.