Author: Howard Exner
Date: 02:22:50 02/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 1998 at 00:03:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 04, 1998 at 13:00:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On February 04, 1998 at 06:01:52, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 1998 at 03:12:35, Howard Exner wrote: >>> >>>>On February 03, 1998 at 15:52:30, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>>No. 475 (Rh5): >>>>> >>>>>Probably correct, but I'm not sure. I followed 1.Rh5 Ne2+ 2.Kh1 Ng3+ >>>>>3.hxg3 Qxf1+ 4.Kh2 now I see that 4...f6 loses but perhaps 4...h6 5.Bxh6 >>>>>g6 holds. >>>> >>>>Be3 will force a mate. >>>> >>> >>>Right. Keep it. >>> >>> >>>>>If it's correct, it should be extremely difficult. >>>> >>>>Yes this will be a tough one. >>>>> >>>>>Recommend: Investigate. >> >>I ran this for four hours on the Alpha. After 34 minutes it had a draw >>score. Next iteration took a huge amount of time to resolve, it ended >>up terminating in a fail-high condition, failing high from the draw >>score, so the score is still pretty low. > >I started this up on a P2/300 this morning and let it go all day. The >fail high resolved at +1.15. > >Mine finds 6. Be3, but didn't see a mate in this search, it just won an >exchange and a pawn back. Maybe it will do better in later iterations, >I'll let it run until I need the machine for something else. Rebel 8 likes Be3 at 3:29 on ply 10 with a 1.27 eval which then jumps to a 2.21 eval next ply, not seeing the mate. When I enter the move Be3 Rebel 8 now sees the mate coming at ply 11 (a mate in 8 announcement) >>>>>No. 500 (f3): >>>>> >>>>>Looks wrong: 1...f3 2.Nxf3 Qg3 3.Be3 and where is the continuation ? >>>>> >>>>>Recommend: Drop it. >>>> >>>>The book continues with 3 ... Bg4 4.Qd6 Be5 0-1. Looks correct. Is >>>>there something better than Qd6 though? >>> >>>No. Rd2 and Qc5 fail. It's correct. >> >>I'm running this now, too. > >This one found 1. ... f3 in approximately two hours on the Alpha. The >fail-high resolved to +4.41. > >1. ... Nxf2 was at +1.42 in the same iteration, so this seems to be good >but either not as good or not as direct as 1. ... f3. > >This may be the coolest problem I have ever seen. It is solvable but >the complications are fantastic. Yes this is quite a wild position, almost as if it were a composed problem. The game was Ciocaltea vs Radovici (Romania,1968). I'm wondering if anyone has this game in a database as I am curious if the actual moves were from the game or if it was discovered after the game. The authors of ECM state that not all positions were actual game scores but that many positions were included from post game analysis. Either way it certainly is mind boggling Looks like there will be quite a number of challenging positions coming out of this revised suite.
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.