Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:58:58 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 03:27:46, blass uri wrote: >On January 19, 2000 at 00:35:44, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 11:26:43, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>which still seems weird to me :) but in any case Black seems to be picking up a >>>pawn no matter what White does, so Nb2 may not be horrible. Hey, it just >>>occured to me that I had logging on. Here's the first search (for 27. ...c5). >>>Scores are always from White's perspective in the log, I think. >> >>That was wrong. The scores are from the perspective of the player to move. >> >>>So, 27...c5 may still be the move you're looking for, Amir. I guess it's time >>>to check out move 32. >> >>Here's a search on move 32. >> >>[D]3B1bk1/1r5p/r2pb1p1/2p1np2/N7/1PP5/P1B2RPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 32 >> >>middle-game phase >> clearing hash tables >> time surplus 0.09 time limit 0.09 (0.54) >> nss depth time score variation (1) >> 7 1.18 0.07 32. Re1 c4 33. Rb1 Ra8 34. Bg5 Nd3 >> 35. Bxd3 cxd3 >> 7 3.51 0.15 32. Re2 Bc4 33. Ree1 Bd3 34. Rbc1 Bg7 >> 35. c4 >> (2) 7-> 3.95 0.15 32. Re2 Bc4 33. Ree1 Bd3 34. Rbc1 Bg7 >> 35. c4 >> 8 5.89 -0.01 32. Re2 Bd7 33. Rbe1 Bxa4 34. bxa4 >> Be7 35. Bxe7 Rxe7 36. Bb3+ Kg7 37. >> Kf2 >> 8 11.20 0.03 32. Bg5 Bg7 33. Re2 Bc4 34. Re3 h6 >> 35. Bf4 Ng4 >> (3) 8-> 13.37 0.03 32. Bg5 Bg7 33. Re2 Bc4 34. Re3 h6 >> 35. Bf4 Ng4 >> (2) 9 18.81 -0.01 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Re1 Bg7 34. Rfe2 Bxa4 >> 35. bxa4 h6 36. Bf4 Rb2 <HT> >> 9-> 27.92 -0.01 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Re1 Bg7 34. Rfe2 Bxa4 >> 35. bxa4 h6 36. Bf4 Rb2 <HT> >> 10 45.61 0.01 32. Bg5 Bg7 33. Re2 h6 34. Bf4 c4 35. >> Ree1 Re7 36. bxc4 Bxc4 37. Rb8+ Bf8 >> 10-> 1:01 0.01 32. Bg5 Bg7 33. Re2 h6 34. Bf4 c4 35. >> Ree1 Re7 36. bxc4 Bxc4 37. Rb8+ Bf8 >> 11 1:48 -0.07 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Re8 >> 35. b4 h6 36. Bb3+ Kh8 37. Bd5 Rbb8 >> 11-> 2:41 -0.07 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Re8 >> 35. b4 h6 36. Bb3+ Kh8 37. Bd5 Rbb8 >> 12 3:14 -0.06 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Re8 >> 35. Rfe1 Bg7 36. b4 cxb4 37. cxb4 Rb5 >> 38. Nc3 >> 12-> 4:32 -0.06 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Re8 >> 35. Rfe1 Bg7 36. b4 cxb4 37. cxb4 Rb5 >> 38. Nc3 >> 13 6:06 -0.06 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Bg7 >> 35. Rfe1 Bb5 36. Rbd1 Re8 37. b4 cxb4 >> 38. Rxd6 >> 13-> 8:25 -0.06 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 Ra8 34. Bf4 Bg7 >> 35. Rfe1 Bb5 36. Rbd1 Re8 37. b4 cxb4 >> 38. Rxd6 >> 14 15:50 -0.17 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Re1 c4 34. Bf4 Ra5 >> 35. Rfe2 Nd3 36. Rf1 Bg7 37. Bxd6 Rd5 >> 38. Be7 Bxa4 39. bxa4 Bxc3 >> (2) 14-> 34:08 -0.17 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Re1 c4 34. Bf4 Ra5 >> 35. Rfe2 Nd3 36. Rf1 Bg7 37. Bxd6 Rd5 >> 38. Be7 Bxa4 39. bxa4 Bxc3 >> 15 55:25 -0.23 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 c4 34. Rfd1 Bg7 >> 35. Bf4 h6 36. Be3 Nf7 37. Bd2 Rc7 >> 38. Re1 cxb3 39. axb3 Bxa4 40. bxa4 >> Bxc3 >> 15-> 85:56 -0.23 32. Bg5 Bd7 33. Rff1 c4 34. Rfd1 Bg7 >> 35. Bf4 h6 36. Be3 Nf7 37. Bd2 Rc7 >> 38. Re1 cxb3 39. axb3 Bxa4 40. bxa4 >> Bxc3 >> 16 230:39 -0.32 32. Bg5 c4 33. Bd2 Bd7 34. Rff1 Bc6 >> 35. Bg5 Bd7 36. Rfd1 Bg7 37. Bf4 h6 >> 38. Rd4 Bb5 <HT> >> 16-> 348:36 -0.32 32. Bg5 c4 33. Bd2 Bd7 34. Rff1 Bc6 >> 35. Bg5 Bd7 36. Rfd1 Bg7 37. Bf4 h6 >> 38. Rd4 Bb5 <HT> >> 17 568:54 -0.34 32. Bg5 c4 33. Bf4 Bd7 34. Rff1 Bg7 >> 35. Rfd1 Bb5 36. Bg5 Nf7 37. Bd2 Rc7 >> 38. Re1 Ra5 39. Re6 cxb3 40. axb3 Bxa4 >> 41. bxa4 Bxc3 >> >>So far, the scores are backing up Amir's assertion that 32. Re1 was a mistake. >>Still, I'm a bit puzzled... here's the position after the last PV: >> >>[D]6k1/2r2n1p/3pR1p1/r4p2/P7/2b5/2BB2PP/1R4K1 w - - 0 42 >> >>Does that really look like it's only -0.3ish for White? >> >>I think I'll let this position crunch overnight. It would be nice if Ferret (or >>something else that does some bigtime extending) took a swing at this position, >>but I think Bruce is probably still busy doing some Nolot testing. >> >>Dave > >I think a better idea is to give the computer to play against itself at 10 >hours/move because we cannot be sure that the last moves of a long pv are the >right moves. > >I understands that it can take a long time and we can save part of the time by >checking if a move is forced before analyzing at 10 hours/move by checking if >there are singular moves when the difference between the best and the second >move after some minutes is more than a pawn. > >Uri It looked like there were no singular moves early on, but now at the very deepest depths something is going on. The number of root moves that do not get much lower scores than the best root move seems to be shrinking. Presumably the search is refuting various alternatives to Bg5, even while Bg5's score is steadily (albeit slowly) dropping. I am going to ask on the crafty-list if I am interpreting the output correctly. Dave
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.