Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:43:24 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 09:04:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 11, 2000 at 18:14:46, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 11, 2000 at 16:11:54, Amir Ban wrote: >>[snip] >>>Don't be silly. That's the end position of DB-GK game 2. Deep Blue didn't see >>>the draw, and actually made the mistake of walking into this position. People >>>found the draw half an hour after the game and used micros to verify it. >>Not at all unlikely that I am wrong about all of them. >> >>At any rate, there was a thread titled "DB vs Kasparov Game 2 35. axb5" which >>had computers running for days on end. I see that you were a contributor. The >>other thread authors were: > >>Blass Uri >>Bruce Moreland >>Dan Homan >>Dave Gomboc >>Ernst A. Heinz >>Ernst Walet >>Eugene Nalimov >>Graham Laight >>James Robertson >>Jeremiah Pennery >>Mark Young >>Michael Cummings >>Peter McKenzie >>Robert Hyatt >>Scott Shepherd >>Vincent Diepeveen >>Will Singleton >> >>I have put all relevant messages into a zip file on my ftp directory: >>ftp://38.168.214.175/pub/AXB5.ZIP >> >>for any who might be interested. You seem to have had some special insight on >>this position, and even had access to the printouts. >> >>Is this position reproducable by PC's? > >Yes it is, for the same reason that deep blue played the Be4? (Qb6 wins >as shown in numerous analysis) move. I don't believe this has been proven. DB failed low on Qb6. It is therefore likely it isn't "good enough". > >Deep Blue finds opposite bishops a big draw, even when being a passed >pawn up. Combined with the fact that deep blue doesn't like a king >without pawns around it (and a possible queencheck) this makes programs >find axb5 without problems. This is _absolutely_ false. Hsu and several of us had a long discussion at one ACM event about this, as Cray Blitz was in a position where it thought it was drawish for the same reason. Hsu mentioned that deep thought had come up on a similar position and had a similar eval, and that a GM had talked with him at length. And that as a result, he had modified the eval, as opposite bishops don't always draw. Why make statements that you absolutely can't prove, that you have absolutely no foundation for? Deep Blue had a good sense about which of these type positions are winnable and which are not... > >The reason deep blue played axb5! is the same reason why it doesn't play Qb6! >the next move. > >It plays Be4 because after Qb6 we get again an opposite bishops ending, >but this time it's won, that's the big difference with the axb5 move.
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.