|Dec-24-01|| ||Sneaky: On move 29, I had to wonder why the computer played ...Bb6 instead of the "obvious" ...Nf2+ 30 Kg1 Nd3+ 31 Nxd4 Nxe1.
My own computer suggested the reason: 32. Bc4! trapping the knight.
|Sep-22-02|| ||pawntificator: What a ridiculous game. It's a good thing computers don't run the world. |
|Mar-18-05|| ||inhalaattori: Wohoo. The longest game in database with at least one computer player. |
|Mar-18-05|| ||child of my tears: The 50 moves rule. Thank god for the 50 moves rule. |
|Jun-10-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <Thank god for the 50 moves rule.> |
If the 50 moves rule hadn't been implied, White might have had a mate in around 200-250 moves, although I'm not entirely sure. The below link shows that R+B and R+N vs 2N is theoretically a mate, but I don't know how it's with R+B vs N+B.
|Jun-10-05|| ||OhioChessFan: <Sneaky> Junior had to asess his position as superior at that point. Nf2-h3 leads to a quick perpetual. Maybe Junior valued his bishop pair higher than warranted.|
|Mar-23-06|| ||Nomen Nescio: Try this: play through the last 70 moves of the game in reverse, they make about the same amount of sense as they do going forward.|
|Mar-23-06|| ||KYENNY 1 3 9: I have deep junior 7 8 9. is that the best?|
|Apr-27-06|| ||soberknight: <I have deep junior 7 8 9.> Is that why deep junior 6 was afraid of 7? (Ba-da bang!)|
<TheAlchemist> Keep in mind that normal computer chess machines work differently than endgame tablebases, which Tim Krabbe writes about at the link you provided. Even if White had a theoretically winning position - and I'm almost certain that it's a dead draw from move 120 onwards - a normal computer program would never be able to find it's way among all the endless, apparently pointless variation. Only a tablebase, by working backwards from checkmate, can forecast the distant future 300 moves beyond.
|May-10-06|| ||TheAlchemist: <Keep in mind that normal computer chess machines work differently than endgame tablebases>|
Sure, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, I just thought that theoretically, with the use of a 6-men tablebase, White might be winning in the position arising at move 120. Of course, for a computer alone it's impossible to figure it out, plus the 50 moves rule decides in any case.
|May-11-06|| ||hitman84: the problem with endgame tables is that
all the positions are stored.
There are standard positions wherein
a R+B v/s B+N wins so the comp just keeps trying to get that particular position and keeps playing on and on..
If the same position is stored in the engame table of the other comp as well
it just avoids getting into the position where R+B wins against B+N.
This is where the comp lacks knowledge.
Knowledge must be imparted to the comp that if the position in the endgame table cannot be forced then it is a draw.
|Nov-29-06|| ||Bob726: After black had played 120. Kxa6, white had six different moves to win, but each one required at least 50 moves to win(the shortest one was 54 moves). Any bishop moves win(execpt)Be4 of course. I checked this information with an endgame database.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||Bob726: In the final poistion, white had 12 out of 20 moves! which win. Also, each won under 50 moves so if the 50 move wasn't in effect, white would have a forced win.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||Bob726: That bring up an interseting topic. If there is a forced win, isn't the 50 move rule not in effect?|
|Aug-24-08|| ||4tmac: After 120 moves white had a win and would win with a modern (2008) TB. He wins in 54 with Bg8!---and I am "pretty sure" this would include the win of a piece thereby resetting the 50 move rule. Anyway, without a TB it is hopeless as white went wrong on move 122: |
click for larger view
Ke3 would win but Kd3?! still wins but takes 23 moves longer (71 moves vs. only 48!) These endings are impossible to "reason out".
|Feb-07-09|| ||WhiteRook48: the computers should have had "offer draw" flag implemented|
|May-12-09|| ||WhiteRook48: A Chess Odyssey?!|
|May-26-09|| ||WhiteRook48: yes, two bishops are more important than material!