Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:01:55 05/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1998 at 13:54:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 13, 1998 at 11:55:37, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On May 13, 1998 at 08:00:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >> >>>Big surprise was that Diep played so well in blitz in Paris, >> >>[snip] >> >>>Against Junior diep had a totally won >>>position, but then diep searched 5 seconds for a move, played it and >>>lost. at second 6 it would have gotten a fail low. 6 ply ain't enough to >>>see tactically everything. But in that position 6 ply would have been >>>enough >>>to win it. >> >> >>Vincent, I'm real busy now. Why do I have to waste time to correct your >>statements ? >> >>The Paris game Diep-Junior is below. Diep plays 32.Qc1 and loses >>immediately. It has better moves (say R1a5 or Rxb7), but this gives >>white equality at best. I'll take black here anytime. >> >>Pity Qc1 didn't work out. It was a real crushing move ! I'm a bit >>puzzled how you managed to play it. I looked what level I need to find >>32...Nd3 and I find it in depth 1. Perhaps I can find it in quiescence >>only. If you can't avoid such moves in 5 seconds, I suggest a major >>redesign of your program. >> >> >>[Event "?"] >>[Site "?"] >>[Date "?"] >>[Round "5"] >>[White "Diep"] >>[Black "Junior"] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[ECO "?"] >> >>1. d4 d5 2. a3 Bf5 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Ne2 Ne7 6. Nd2 Nbc6 >>7. c4 O-O 8. Bg3 a5 9. c5 Bxg3 10. hxg3 Qd7 11. Nf3 b6 12. Rc1 Rfb8 >>13. Qd2 b5 14. Nf4 a4 15. Bd3 h6 16. Bxf5 exf5 17. Qe2 b4 18. axb4 Rxb4 >>19. Ra1 Qc8 20. Nd3 Rbb8 21. Ra3 Qe8 22. Qc2 Nb4 23. Nxb4 Rxb4 24. O-O >>Qb5 >>25. Rb1 Rb8 26. Qd1 Nc6 27. Nh4 g6 28. Rba1 Rxb2 29. Rxa4 Kh7 30. Ra6 >>Nb4 >>31. Ra7 Rb7 32. Qc1 Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb6 35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1 >>Ng4 >>37. Qc1 Qb3 38. Qe1 Nxe3 39. Kh1 Qd3 40. Nf3 Rxg2 41. Qxe3 Qxe3 42. Kxg2 >>Qe2 >>43. Kh3 Qxf3 44. Kh2 Qf2 45. Kh1 Qxg3 46. Rf1 f4 47. Ra1 Qf3 48. Kg1 Qe3 >>49. Kh1 Qe4 50. Kh2 Qe2 51. Kh1 f3 0-1 >> >> >>Amir > > > >I agree. My "broken quiescence search" (Vincent's words, not mine) >finds >this as follows, after white's move 32: > depth time score variation (1) > 1 0.00 0.24 32. ... Nd3 > 1-> 0.00 0.24 32. ... Nd3 > 2 0.00 0.44 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 > 2 0.00 0.47 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1 > 2-> 0.01 0.47 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1 > 3 0.04 0.68 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1 > 3-> 0.08 0.68 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1 > 4 0.09 0.44 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1 > Kh8 35. Nf3 > 4-> 0.13 0.44 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1 > Kh8 35. Nf3 > 5 0.21 -- 32. ... Rxa7 > 5 0.25 0.14 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1 >Qxf1+ > 35. Kxf1 Rb1+ 36. Ke2 Rb2+ 37. Kf3 > 5 0.29 ++ 32. ... Nd3!! > 5 0.30 1.64 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 You need 5 ply to see Nd3 winning. Diep searched 5 ply starting with 6 in Paris. Nowadays it gets it within 2 seconds, but that's of no use. The most important blitz contest last year Junior won against Diep. It's interesting to see how Diep can get with 5 ply searches, sometimes 6 ply searches such a position against Junior, getting way deeper. The depth of Junior always amazes me, just like genius depth (although genius does only print out its positional depth, it seems to see 2 ply more). >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 > 5-> 0.40 1.64 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 > 6 0.47 1.77 32. ... Nd3 33. Qc3 Nxf2 34. Nf3 >Rxa7 > 35. Rxa7 Ne4 > 6-> 0.61 1.77 32. ... Nd3 33. Qc3 Nxf2 34. Nf3 >Rxa7 > 35. Rxa7 Ne4 > 7 0.74 1.68 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 > 7-> 0.94 1.68 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 > 8 1.15 1.82 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 Qc6 > 8-> 1.44 1.82 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 Qc6 > 9 1.80 1.84 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1 > 9-> 2.42 1.84 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1 > 10 3.20 ++ 32. ... Nd3!! > 10-> 4.89 2.13 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1 >Nxf2 > 35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1 > 11 7.09 2.33 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb3 > 35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1 Qb5 37. Qc1 Qe2 > 38. Nf3 > 11-> 10.08 2.33 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb3 > 35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1 Qb5 37. Qc1 Qe2 > 38. Nf3 > > >So it looks good at 1 ply, but turns *real* good after only .29 seconds. >It doesn't take much to find that. If you don't in 5 seconds, something >is seriously wrong...
This page took 0.01 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.