Author: Howard Exner
Date: 03:34:22 02/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2000 at 06:29:43, Howard Exner wrote: >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 is a sequence of three positions from the same game >starting with the final one first and working backwards. > >1. Humans and computers know this is an easy win for black. >Computers by calculating, humans at a glance through pattern recognition. > >[D]8/5p2/4p1p1/4P2p/5P1P/kP4P1/8/1K6 b - - bm Kxb3; > >2.In this position humans can also see quickly that >the queen side pawns can be exchanged leading to the >first position. > >[D]8/5p2/p3p1p1/1p2P2p/5P1P/kP4P1/P7/1K6 b - - bm a6a5; > >3. This initial position will lead to the other two losing positions >if white plays Bxc5? Humans, knowing the other two patterns >will avoid the exchange and instead consider moves like Be3 >or Be1 but computers will have to calculate this one >to great lengths to avoid losing. How many programs will avoid >Bxc5? > >[D]8/5p2/p3p1p1/1pbkP2p/5P1P/1P4P1/P3KB2/8 w - - am Bxc5 Sorry, the diagrams are corrected with black to move for the first two positions
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.