Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:42:24 01/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2001 at 12:00:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 08, 2001 at 00:52:04, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On January 07, 2001 at 12:05:11, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>Qg6 is better and i had already mention analizing in reverse ...at 23Qg6 is >>>prefered over Qg4 at 16Ply so if i wanted to leave my computer running for 52 >>>more hours it would've surely found Qg6 in the pv. >>> >>> >>>you can try it but i answered your question already so i hope this helps you. >>>Let me clear this up i let it sit for 26 hours fritz went to 19/50 ply it >>>would've taken atleast 1 more ply to find Qg6 maybe 2 but no more as at move 23 >>>it takes 16ply to find Qg6 , upto 15ply Qg4 is prefered ..... Qg6 is better >> >>If it takes 19 ply to find that one move is really the best move (e5 better than >>Nf3, for example), then it might take 19 ply to find out that Qg4 is better than >>Qg6, or it could be that you're right and Qg6 is really better. I'm not totally >>convinced that a simple computer search from that position can tell us the right >>answer, because both moves are probably winning, and it's obviously very deep. > >The whole idea is to mate black, and black of course can prevent >that for quite a time with moves like Nh5. > >I get quite a good score for e5 real quick, but at bigger depths >DIEP starts to get real happy about Nce2 and e5 one move later, which >more or less is in some variations simply transposition, but score >goes up from minus score to 0.80 nearly for Nce2 after some time, >as that basically is doing the same as e5 the next move i don't see >the difference quite clear, but sure direct e5 is more forcing though >also taking more risk. > >Vincent e5 just flat out wins tactically. bruce
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.