Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:58:02 07/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2003 at 19:57:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 15, 2003 at 16:43:52, Matthew White wrote: > >>On July 15, 2003 at 16:37:18, Michael P. Nance Sr. wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2003 at 16:07:44, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>>>On July 15, 2003 at 15:21:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Here is a position reached in a game on ICC between Crafty and an >>>>>unnamed opponent: >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/2k2p2/7p/ppPK4/6P1/P6P/8/8 w 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>This seems like a simple "distant passed pawn" idea where black's king isss >>>>>closer to the remaining pawns after the queen-side pawns are all gone. I'd >>>>>hope not many would play c6 and lost instantly, but at least one commercial >>>>>engine does. Goes to show that _anything_ can happen in a comp vs comp >>>>>game of chess. :) >>>>> >>>>Deep Junior 8 makes ~4 minutes in a PIV 1500MHz to see c6 is losing and >>>>it's the first choice, until it sees Ke5 or Ke4. So in time control of >>>>120'/40+120'/40, in my computer, it would PROBABLY play the wrong move, >>>>but in a fast Dual/Quad it wouldn't. >>> So the same Program played on a singal Processor would come up with a totally >>>different move than the move It would choose if It was on a multi-processor? >>Definitely. I have seen some downright bizarre blunders played on multiprocessor >>versions of programs that wouldn't even consider the move under normal >>conditions. >> >>Matt > > >I _hope_ not out of "mine". :) Mine should make the same blunder whether it uses one processor or 16. :) :)
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.