Author: Howard Exner
Date: 03:25:48 02/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 17:26:40, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On February 01, 2000 at 05:55:07, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On February 01, 2000 at 02:39:46, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>Thanks for all your analysis! I think I see now that white was lost anyway, >>>though I'm not 100% convinced yet (only 99% :). In any case, it would be really >>>difficult for either side (white to hold the draw, if it existed, and for black >>>to find the win, if white did optimal play). >> >>These positions are always lots of fun to hash out with other chess players. > >Yes! I agree. :) > >>Eventually we seem to get to the truth of a position with the help of our >>computer programs ( at least in my case). > >I couldn't do it without the computer, for sure. I make simple tactical errors, >that the computer can correct for me, while I can try to decide on the strategy. > >>We sort of go into correspondence >>analysis mode (using a computer to boot) while the chess program is bound to the >>limits of the time control it played under. So I agree that this and other >>positions are difficult for machines when faced with optimal play. Would they >>play h4 here and follow up correctly? Would they play the Rg4+ move and >>the Ke5 response!(that you found) from that other interesting thread? > >Before very recently, I never truly appreciated the difficulty in such analysis. > I had done some much simpler analyses, but I never had anyone to help me find >the truth of a position. Of course, I always made mistakes. Before, when I saw >that, say, a GM's analysis had an error, I was really amazed that they could >miss such a thing. Now, I realize just how difficult it is to make sure all the >moves in the analysis is optimal, and that alternate lines are provided. In >some positions, it is really difficult to do. > >Thanks for helping me find the truth in this position. :) > >>Mind you many of todays programs are playing very nice endgame moves when >>compared to say 3-5 years ago. > >True, but it still seems to be one of the major weak points of computers. There >are still too many pieces for them to be able to use TBs, and they just have no >plan on what they need to do. In the middlegame this seems to work Ok, but in >the endgame they need a plan, or else they too often simply shuffle pieces. This idea of needing a plan is indeed a stumbling block in endgames. It's tied in with pattern recognition. Here's an example:
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.