Question about PME position

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Question about PME position

Post by Blue Devil Knight on July 5th 2009, 1:01 pm

I said:
"3. There are lines that a computer ranks highly that would be silly to play in practice, even though the computer playing that same line would be fine."

Change "silly" to another less loaded word such as 'less good'.

AoxomoxoA wrote:Point 3 is true, i guess ( would be interesting to see one ), but my projected 1911 ELO ( about 2011 UCSF ?) tells me: this is not the case here and my experience witch computeranalyses of positions tell me the same, espiacily for player like Kramnik. I would expect these rare cases in extrem sharp situations. Off couse i have no proofs for this statement though :-(

The most obvious is that the computer picks a sharp mate in 10 over an easy trade down to a simple and trivial win that takes more than 10 moves (but in practice the human will resign). As I already mentioned, things like simplicity the computer doesn't care about when it sees a good forcing sequence. I didn't say this was all lines, but only some, and as you mentioned it is most likely extremely sharp lines.

__________________________________________
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com
avatar
Blue Devil Knight
Grandmaster
Grandmaster

Posts : 616
Join date : 2009-04-12

View user profile http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about PME position

Post by AoxomoxoA on July 5th 2009, 2:42 pm

.


Last edited by AoxomoxoA on July 5th 2009, 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

AoxomoxoA
Club Player
Club Player

Posts : 44
Join date : 2009-06-28
Location : Mannheim / Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about PME position

Post by AoxomoxoA on July 5th 2009, 3:51 pm

AoxomoxoA wrote:
Blue Devil Knight wrote:...
The most obvious is that the computer picks a sharp mate in 10 over an...

Yes, clear. but i was talking about "here" meaning 29.b4 for Kramnik . Dont look thaaaat sharp to me :-)). For Kramink should be such a 10# not absolutaly imossible, but even he has his limits. For me chessidiot ( elo<2700 LOL ) thats of couse more often true. I agree with our teacher at Test 01 Problem 4: "when you have a big strategic plus, dont ...(use tactics) ... you can not calculate."

  • by the way:I think they mean "big positional plus".

    The american (1938?-41) Chessteacher Emanuel Lasker said (my words):

    Strategie : longterm plans ( like our TODO Lists )
    Tactics : ways the fullfill ( parts of) strategic goals
    Combination: more or less forced line to gane material, mates, big positional plus... (Like CT-ART)
    Positional Plus: Peace activety, open lines, space - advances, tempos, advenced pawns,.. ( increased chances to win)


You can see at the computeranalyses that a position is sharp:


6k1/5p2/7p/2pnN3/2Q1Pp2/4q1bP/3N2P1/7K w - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3:

1. +- (2.42): 40.Sdf3 Da3 41.Dxd5 Da7 42.Sg4 Db6 43.De5 Kf8
2. = (0.00): 40.Sf1 De1 41.exd5 Dxe5 42.Dxc5 Kg7 43.Sxg3 fxg3 44.Dc1 Dd4 45.De1 Dd3
3. =/+ (-0.69): 40.Sef3 Sc7 41.e5 Da3 42.Se4 Da1+ 43.Sg1 Dxe5 44.Dxc5 Dxc5 45.Sxc5 Se6 46.Se4 Lh4
4. -/+ (-1.15): 40.Dc1 De2 41.exd5 Dxe5 42.Dc4 Kg7 43.Sf1 Dd4 44.Dc1 Lf2 45.Dc2 c4
5. -+ (-1.61): 40.Db5 Kg7 41.Sef3 Sb4 42.Sf1 Dd3 43.Dxd3 Sxd3 44.S1d2 Kf6 45.Kg1 Sb2 46.Kf1
6. -+ (-1.79): 40.Da6 De1+ 41.Df1 Dxd2 42.exd5 Dxd5 43.Sc4 Dd4 44.Dc1 Df2 45.Se5 De3
7. -+ (-1.79): 40.Df1 Dxd2 41.exd5 Dxd5 42.Sc4 Dd4 43.Dc1 Df2 44.Se5 De3
8. -+ (-1.79): 40.Dd3 De1+ 41.Df1 Dxd2 42.exd5 Dxd5 43.Sc4 Dd4 44.Dc1 Df2 45.Se5 De3
9. -+ (-1.90): 40.exd5 Dxd2 41.Df1 Dxd5 42.Sc4 Dd4 43.Dc1 Df2 44.Se5 De3
10. -+ (-3.78): 40.Sxf7 Dxd2 41.Dxc5 Kxf7 42.Dxd5+ Dxd5 43.exd5 Ke7 44.Kg1 Kd6 45.Kf1 Kxd5 46.Ke2 Ke4 47.Kd2 f3
11. -+ (-4.36): 40.Sg4 Dxd2 41.Dxc5 Se3 42.Sxe3 De1+ 43.Sf1 Dxf1+ 44.Dg1 De2 45.Dc1 Dxe4 46.Dd1 Kg7 47.Kg1 De3+ 48.Kh1 Kg6 49.Dd6+
12. -+ (-6.98): 40.Sd7 Dxd2
13. -+ (-7.59): 40.Sd3 Dxd2
14. -+ (-7.89): 40.Sc6 Dxd2
15. -+ (-8.33): 40.Sg6 Dxd2
16. -+ (-12.77): 40.h4 Dxd2
17. -+ (-17.85): 40.Dd4 Dxd4
18. -+ (-27.90): 40.Dxc5 Dxc5[]
19. -+ (-#5): 40.De2 Dxe2
20. -+ (-#3): 40.Dc2 De1+
21. -+ (-#3): 40.Da4 De1+

(, 05.07.2009)

If you dont hit the best move, what is statistcally dificult you have problems. Only a few moves ar acceptable. But the situation we are discussing is not sharp.
even our techers where not happy with b4, "maybe with b4" dont sound like a deep analysis with a clear result.

But even the opposit of your mentioned problem might happen with comuter moves: since the endgame-tablebases a computer knows shure mates in 100+ moves. So the computer would select a endgame with 100+ moves instead winning Queen and ... just because he dont see the mate wich is shure more or less soon. here the computer select the long line instead the sharp short one you mentioned. But this is theoretical. it would be interesting to see a real excample though.
I am shure it will be mentioned in a book ;-)

AoxomoxoA
Club Player
Club Player

Posts : 44
Join date : 2009-06-28
Location : Mannheim / Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about PME position

Post by Blue Devil Knight on July 5th 2009, 6:21 pm

Obviously my three points were general, and this discussion has veered well beyond that particular position.

__________________________________________
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com
avatar
Blue Devil Knight
Grandmaster
Grandmaster

Posts : 616
Join date : 2009-04-12

View user profile http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about PME position

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum