13399 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Im studying Silmans book, Complete Endgame Course, and this position is given in one of the test problems, asking the player to evaluate g5. In the solution, it gives ... g5?? as losing.
To see how it would play out fully, I entered this position into CM 10 and let it play against itself. I know its not the best, but its still rated at 2900+. Guess what move it made -- g5. It also ended up drawing w/ black when I let it play out, and winning, as black, when I forced it to make some moves early.
My machine never considered 1. .... g5 in the top three, all the way from depth 1 to depth 26:
Here's the evaluation after 1. .... g5 (depth 24):
In general, and without talking specifically about the position you've provided, yes, computers are weaker at endgames than other aspects of the game, with some caveats.
In a simplified position where the engine can make use of tablebases (I'm not sure if CM uses these, so I'm talking about computers in general), it can play the endgame position perfectly just by doing data retrieval. When the game isn't yet in that state, the computer has to look ahead to a certain number of ply and evaluate the resulting positions as good or bad. If it finds positions in the tablebases known to be a win/loss/draw, evaluating the position is easy. When it's not found, things can be a little dicey with respect to endgames.
Endgames are obviously different from middlegames, and the computer must evaluate them a bit differently to be effective at endgames. Endgames usually require king activity (something that would be suicidal in the middlegame), and focus on the creation and promotion of passed pawns. Realize that humans can learn lots of endgames tricks: opposition, triangulation, square of the pawn, etc. to guide them when looking ahead, but computers (for the most part) have to continuously rediscover this knowledge by brute force search. If the key outcome of that technique is just beyond their search horizon, they can miss making the key move in a critical position, but then have no chance to recover because endgames can be unforgiving like that. This is more likely to happen in endgames than other phases of the game because it is possible for a human to look ahead much further than in a normal middlegame position when you know the kinds of things you should be looking for.
This is further complicated by the question of when does the transition from middlegame to endgame occur. In a complicated queenless middlegame, the human might transition to thinking about the endgame, but the computer could still be registering it as a middlegame position and evaluating it as such.
Now, anything that can search ahead enough ply is going to still play beastly chess, but you're more likely to see a machine occasionally get tripped up in a complicated endgame than in any other phase because of some of the reasons I've outlined.
"2015 European Individual Championship Round 4 Hosts GM Alon Greenfeld & GM Ronen Har-Zvi"
by casper_van_eersel 3 minutes ago
NEVER SAW MY REPETITION ONLINE MATCH DRAW
by hpmobil 4 minutes ago
3 fold repetition does not claim draw
by Lussekatten 4 minutes ago
2/27/2015 - Securing The Win
by rowlem 10 minutes ago
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
by Caedrel 15 minutes ago
debate about chess rules in causal games
by baddogno 15 minutes ago
by Stevie65 37 minutes ago
Chess.com administrator/owner is unfair and childish....!
by GnrfFrtzl 37 minutes ago
Live chess automatic matching : why too strong or too weak opponents ?
by AChessGeek 47 minutes ago
by You-Lost-And-Run 49 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!