Dann Corbit wrote:
The final position of a pv is pretty well useless.
It contains crap like quiescent search nodes.
Not only the final moves of output- lines contain crap, but in this one "already" 19th (counted from new start) reaches a drawn 7some position
A 36 ply search I trust for one node, unless it is a gambit, in which case I still don't trust it.
A 40 ply search is good for about 3 nodes.
Right now, I am analyzing some of Jeroen's positions at one hour each on my 64 core Unix box. Some of his positions are real computer killers. I have seen quite a few that look like a win and then suddenly drop to drawish.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
Because of the state of tension with this analysis, I decided to stop posting any position, tree, or search related with the game. A dead draw will always remain a dead draw, and it's not worth further efforts.
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Because of the state of tension with this analysis, I decided to stop posting any position, tree, or search related with the game. A dead draw will always remain a dead draw, and it's not worth further efforts.
The reason for Spassky-Fischer (29...Bxh2) endgame is excessive analysed is because it's desirable to know whether black can draw in many of the sub-variations, deviating from the main game and check most relevant branches.
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Because of the state of tension with this analysis, I decided to stop posting any position, tree, or search related with the game. A dead draw will always remain a dead draw, and it's not worth further efforts.
The reason for Spassky-Fischer (29...Bxh2) endgame is excessive analysed is because it's desirable to know whether black can draw in many of the sub-variations, deviating from the main game and check most relevant branches.
I agree, but in this case everyone who tried to perform some serious analysis always got overwhelmed by nonsenses. When someone tries to fool others with unexisting scores again and again, it could be a lot frustrating. As if all chess players of this forum were dummies. One eventually gets tired.
In fact, there are many skilled chess players here. I think each of them is worth of respect. I like very much to share analysis with them, and it's a pity each topic gets ruined by a "I know everything, and you are nobody" buggy subroutine.
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Because of the state of tension with this analysis, I decided to stop posting any position, tree, or search related with the game. A dead draw will always remain a dead draw, and it's not worth further efforts.
The reason for Spassky-Fischer (29...Bxh2) endgame is excessive analysed is because it's desirable to know whether black can draw in many of the sub-variations, deviating from the main game and check most relevant branches.
I agree, but in this case everyone who tried to perform some serious analysis always got overwhelmed by nonsenses. When someone tries to fool others with unexisting scores again and again, it could be a lot frustrating. As if all chess players of this forum were dummies. One eventually gets tired.
In fact, there are many skilled chess players here. I think each of them is worth of respect. I like very much to share analysis with them, and it's a pity each topic gets ruined by a "I know everything, and you are nobody" buggy subroutine.
Thanks, anyway.
BTW, I think the two games (Spasski-Fischer and Deep Blue-Kasparov) share an important aspect, the psychologic one. Before the match, Fischer declared "I'll defeat Spasski 13-0". The matches with Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosjan convinced Fischer he was far, far stronger. He felt the need to win all games at any cost and he forced with Bxh2. It was still draw, but the fact to become suddenly aware of an impossible win was devastating. So he blundered and lost.
Kasparov, psychologically, resigned before 45.Ra6. He felt the game was lost and he possibly expected 45.Qd7+. So, emotionally, he wasn't in the best condition to perform a "cold" search. When a GM feels he can complicate a lost game, he usually does. But, as I said, Kasparov already resigned before DB move...
So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.
Leto wrote:So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.
I spent many hours in search of a winning line, but I couldn't find any. I just think Kasparov's mind was having dinner... just waiting for DB move to resign.
Leto wrote:So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.
not at all.
how did you conclude that?
I just stopped with the analysis, as I got tired.
it is far from easy to oppose 10 people.
there are many mainlines still to be investigated.
and again, white having advantage for the next 50 moves or so is not very much a straightforward draw, is it?
Leto wrote:So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.
