Author: Peter Hegger
Date: 13:47:06 09/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1999 at 15:41:50, Paulo Soares wrote: >On September 06, 1999 at 13:18:50, Peter Hegger wrote: > >>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 > >Gambit Benko is an opening used in games among GMs, I think that a GM can also >use it against a program. >Want you analyzes of other program after white played 16.Qc1? > >Paulo Yes, Paulo if you have the analysis by Fritz and/or Hiarcs I'd be interested to see it. Regards, 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.