Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 13:50:17 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2003 at 16:04:00, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >After some more time, Yace eventually showed 0.0: > >1...Qe3 2.Qxd6 Re8 3.Qd7+ Re7 4.Qc6 Qxe4 5.d6 Qb1+ 6.Kf2 Qc2+ 7.Kg1 Re8 8.Kh2 >Qxf5 9.Ra2 Rd8 10.Qxb5 Rxd6 11.Ra7+ Kg6 12.Qe8+ > = (0.11) Depth: 18/63 07:13:38 4279816kN >1...Qe3 2.Qxd6 Re8 3.Qd7+ Re7 4.Qc6 Qxe4 5.d6 Qb1+ 6.Kf2 Qc2+ 7.Kg1 Re8 8.Kh2 >Qxf5 9.Ra2 Rd8 10.Qxb5 Rxd6 11.Ra7+ Kg6 12.Qe8+ > = (0.11) Depth: 18/63 07:18:03 147635kN >1...Qe3 2.Qxd6 Re8 3.Qd7+ Re7 4.Qc6 Qxe4 5.d6 Qd3+ 6.Kg1 Re8 7.Ra7+ Kf8 8.Qc5 >Kg8 9.d7 Rd8 10.Qe7 Qe3+ 11.Kh2 Qf4+ 12.g3 Qd2+ 13.Kg1 Qc1+ 14.Kf2 Qc2+ 15.Kg1 >Qc1+ > = (0.00) Depth: 19/63 11:56:01 2118618kN >1...Qe3 2.Qxd6 Re8 3.Qd7+ Re7 4.Qc6 Qxe4 5.d6 Qd3+ 6.Kg1 Re8 7.Ra7+ Kf8 8.Qc5 >Kg8 9.d7 Rd8 10.Qe7 Qe3+ 11.Kh2 Qf4+ 12.g3 Qd2+ 13.Kg1 Qc1+ 14.Kf2 Qc2+ 15.Kg1 >Qc1+ > = (0.00) Depth: 19/63 12:02:46 2337236kN > >(Bürßner, Konstanz 28.05.2003) > >One should of course have in mind, that a 0.0 score does not prove much in >general. While a mate score (losing or winning) of a chess engine normally >should really mean a proof, the same cannot be said of a draw score. > >Regards, >Dieter Finally Yace prove what I always thought possible, thanks for testing. Now I don't want to read another pesimistic statement like this. "NO program sees this. It is about 60 plies deep. It is unlikely that a program will see it for quite some time to come, in fact..." Pichard
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.