Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:42:16 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 23:40:56, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 16, 2001 at 22:40:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 16, 2001 at 16:30:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 2001 at 16:15:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 16, 2001 at 00:36:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>Vincent emailed me and asked me to run these. I ran them on a quad 450 Xeon. >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/p4bpk/7p/3rq3/3Npp2/PPQ3P1/3R1PKP/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>I get gxf4 until ply 10, after which there is a switch to b4, which is a bad >>>>>move. This fails low to -3.88 in ply 11, and gxf4 comes back with a score of >>>>>-2.48. >>>>> >>>>>Later in ply 11, f3 pops up with a score of -2.33. >>>>> >>>>>Up to here takes 89 seconds. >>>>> >>>>>f3 sticks until ply 14, at which point if fails low to -4.24, and gxf4 comes >>>>>back with a score of -3.21, resolving after about 1/2 hour. >>>>> >>>>>In ply 15, gxf4 fails low again, and the hour ended with no resolution. It was >>>>><= -3.46. >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/p4bpk/7p/3rq3/3Npp2/PPQ2PP1/3R2KP/8 b - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>In this one, I have exf3+, with a score of +2.35 in ply 10. After 16 seconds, >>>>>in ply 10, it finds Bh5, failing high to +2.80. >>>>> >>>>>Ply 11 was uneventful, but in ply 12, Bh5 failed high to +4.24. >>>>> >>>>>The score creeps up slightly, and the last score I got in the hour was +4.99, >>>>>ply 15, after about 45 minutes. >>>>> >>>>>I'll run the first one again all night and see what happens. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>thanks! >>>> >>>>It confirms already what i suspected. f3 is losing >>>>way harder than alternatives! >>>> >>>>I do not understand why ferret needs a ply more to get -4.24 for f3 >>>>than when after f3 is getting played. Possible to shine any light onto >>>>this? >>> >>>I don't see that you can draw that conclusion at all, especially in light of >>>this: >>> >>> ply milliseconds score line >>>no 17 27657860 -433 -1221224784 gxf4 Qxf4 Kh1 Rh5 f3 exf3 Nxf3 Rh3 Rf2 >>> Bd5 Rg2 g5 Qd3+ Qe4 Qxe4+ Bxe4 Nd2 Bxg2+ >>> Kxg2 Rd3 Ne4 Rxb3 a4 Rb4 Nc5 Rb2+ Kg3 >>> -- >>>no 17 41753610 -499 666953819 gxf4 Qxf4 f3 Bh5 Kf1 e3 Re2 Rxd4 Rxe3 >>> Rd1+ Re1 Qxf3+ Qxf3 Bxf3 Rxd1 Bxd1 b4 Kg6 >>> Kf2 Bc2 Ke3 Kf5 b5 >>>no 17 50832840 -494 -1178700567 f3 Bh5 g4 e3 Rd1 Bg6 Qc4 e2 Re1 Rxd4 Qxe2 >>> Qxe2+ Rxe2 Rd3 b4 Rxa3 h4 Bd3 Rd2 Rc3 Kh3 >>> >>>Column 4 (node count) is broken and should be ignored. >>> >>>gxf4 failed low to -4.99 in ply 17, and f3 overtook it at -4.94. So mine would >>>play f3 after 50,832 seconds. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>This is part of the problem in trying to compare anything. Vincent is assuming >>way too much. namely that f3 is worse. Based on some short searches from his >>program. These need many plies to see what is _really_ going on. And trying to >>make a point that f3 was horrible (as played by DB) is a mistake without some >>real evidence. Your program seems to suggest the opposite, that f3 was the >>_right_ move... > >This is all hooey. White should just resign, end of story. > I don't think anybody disagrees that white is lost here. that isn't the point. Vincent claimed that f3 was a gross move that any good program would see was a blunder. It turns out it might not be worse than the move he claimed was better. IE DB might not have been as "stupid" as first claimed... >Dave
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.