Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 18:19:31 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2003 at 16:50:17, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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 Actually - it's not clear that any program does see it ....46. Qd7 is considered by atl east one GM (Joel Benjamin) as best move ,not the 46. Qxd6 as indicated in the PV above.
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.