Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:30:30 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 11:47:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 09, 2001 at 11:40:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 09, 2001 at 11:33:37, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>>>Please take a look again at the former post of K.Burcham and you >>>>>would see that it took Shredder 5 (in the position when F6 grabbed >>>>>at g4) 41! minutes on a 1Gig Cpu to avoid it here. >>>> >>>>The point is about stronger programs like Deep Fritz and not about shredder5. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>huh? Shredder won recently the SingleCPU WM... >>> >>>Günther >> >> >>It is totally unimportant. >>The version of shredder that was used was not shredder5. >>Shredder5 is even not the latest commercial version >> >>Deep Fritz is the best commercial program and not shredder. >>Deep Fritz also does not like 8.h3 on p800 >> >>[D]r2qkb1r/pp2pp2/2n3pn/1B5p/6b1/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Deep Fritz: >> >>8.Bxc6+ bxc6 >> ± (1.22) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >>8.d3! >> +- (1.75) Depth: 1/7 00:00:00 >>8.d3 Bg7 >> +- (1.47) Depth: 2/9 00:00:00 >>8.d4! >> +- (1.53) Depth: 2/13 00:00:00 >>8.h3! >> +- (1.56) Depth: 2/13 00:00:00 >>8.h3! Bf5 >> +- (1.63) Depth: 2/13 00:00:00 >>8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qd6 >> +- (1.78) Depth: 3/9 00:00:00 >>8.h3 Bf5 9.d3 Bg7 >> +- (1.59) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 1kN >>8.d4! >> +- (1.63) Depth: 4/20 00:00:00 5kN >>8.d4! a6 >> +- (1.66) Depth: 4/20 00:00:00 9kN >>8.d4 a6 9.Ba4 Bg7 10.Bf4 >> +- (1.56) Depth: 5/20 00:00:00 21kN >>8.h3! >> +- (1.59) Depth: 5/20 00:00:00 23kN >>8.h3! Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bf4 >> +- (1.72) Depth: 5/20 00:00:00 26kN >>8.h3 Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.d5 Bxc3 11.bxc3 >> +- (1.66) Depth: 6/19 00:00:00 36kN >>8.h3 Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bf4 Nf5 11.d5 >> +- (1.66) Depth: 7/21 00:00:00 72kN >>8.h3 Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.d5 Nb4 11.Bc4 0-0 >> +- (1.59) Depth: 8/24 00:00:00 206kN >>8.d4! >> +- (1.63) Depth: 8/24 00:00:00 488kN >>8.d4! a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Rc8 12.Bxh6 >> +- (1.66) Depth: 8/25 00:00:01 628kN >>8.d4 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.h3 Bf5 11.Ne5 Rc8 >> +- (1.56) Depth: 9/30 00:00:02 1401kN >>8.h3! >> +- (1.59) Depth: 9/30 00:00:02 1500kN >>8.h3! Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bf4 Nf5 11.Nd5 0-0 12.c3 >> +- (1.69) Depth: 9/30 00:00:02 1626kN >>8.h3 Bd7 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bf4 Nf5 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.d5 Bd7 13.Re1 >> +- (1.59) Depth: 10/30 00:00:03 2178kN >>8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Rc8 10.Ne4 a6 11.Re1 Bg7 12.Nf6+ Kf8 13.Bxc6 bxc6 >> ± (1.38) Depth: 11/30 00:00:10 6301kN >>8.d4! >> +- (1.41) Depth: 11/31 00:00:22 14206kN >>8.d4! a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Rc8 >> +- (1.50) Depth: 11/33 00:00:27 17762kN >>8.d4 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Rc8 12.Rd1 Nf5 13.d5 cxd5 >> +- (1.53) Depth: 12/33 00:00:55 35629kN >>8.d4 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Qd7 12.Bxh6 Rxh6 13.Rfd1 Rb8 >> +- (1.47) Depth: 13/36 00:02:05 74546kN >> >>(Blass, Tel-aviv 09.09.2001) > >Sorry > >Deep Fritz later considers 8.h3 as the best move so I cannot say that it avoid >8.h3 but at least it avoids 9.hxg4 > >Uri If it avoids hxg4 it does so because it sees the loss. However, bring it to ICC and let a couple of experts on this trojan horse attack try it. They are very good at constructing positions where the program _can't_ see the loss in any reasonable time limit. They did it to me several times as I was working on the anti-trojan code currently in Crafty. If the program relies on search to avoid taking the piece, it _will_ lose games to this attack when they are set up right. The program has to know that it simply can't take, period, and once it ignores the piece, things might work out fine for it. But it has to _know_ or it is going to have horrendous horizon problems in such positions.
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.