Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 18:07:53 11/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 1998 at 14:50:57, Bruce Moreland wrote: >r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 1 > >It has been contended that this move would be difficult for a computer to find, >and this has caused some doubts to be raised as to whether the computer found it >without assistance in this game. > >I would like to ask how we can clear this up absent input from DB. > >Has anybody run this for a long period on a micro, and if so, was any move >selected other than 35. Qb6? > >Is the counter-attacking line 35. Qb6 Qe7 36. axb5 Rab8 37. Qxa6 e4 supposedly >the reason that white shouldn't play 35. Qb6? Or is it some other line? If it >is too hard or impossible to find 35. axb5, would finding this line show >anything? > >Is there some minimum score delta we can achieve between the position after 35. >axb5 and 35. Qb6 that might be evidence that DB should be given the benefit of >the doubt? > >Are these questions unfair or wrong, if so, are their other questions that can >be asked and possibly answered that will help clear this up? > >bruce This is an excellent post. I am interested in trying to find out an accurate evaluation of this position, it should be possible I think. Maybe DB saw very deeply and found something wrong with Qb6, or maybe Qb6 was rejected due to a bug or an inaccurate king safety term. Maybe DB just saw that axb5 was even better than Qb6? Any of these scenarios seem plausable. First up, I ran the position on lambChop 6.90 for 1hr on a PII 266: 1. Qb6 Found in: 0sec, 4.21ply Completed: 13.0ply Used: 3600sec, Total Nodes: 109033472, NPS: 30287 PV: Qb6 Bc7 Qe6+ Qxe6 fxe6 Rab8 axb5 axb5 Bg6 Bd6 Ra7 Bc7 Kh1 White by 1.3 I plan to look at it more closely this evening, would be interested in other results. Peter
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.