Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:55:05 06/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2000 at 14:51:10, blass uri wrote: >On June 01, 2000 at 14:41:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 01, 2000 at 13:16:38, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2000 at 11:03:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>><snipped> >>>>I think you have to take their PV with a grain of salt, although I trust their >>>>score at the root pretty well since it was a 17 ply search in this case. >>> >>>Their score in the root does not make sense and can only be a result of a bug >>>Other programs can see at least -4 pawns after Rd1 so -1.8 pawns is not logical. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Did you let _other_ programs search as deeply as DB did? It hit 17 plies on >>that move. Until you reach their depth, you can't validate their score. > >I know that in the position after Rd1 the score only goes down when you search >deeper. > >Deeper blue resigned in the next move and they had a reason for resigning. >If the score 17 plies after Rd1 is only -180 they could avoid resigning. > >I guess they understood that it was a bug. >I remember that I read(I do not remember where) that the reason was a bug. > >Uri If it is game 1 of the 2nd match, than that was caused by a bug in the DB. Murray Campbel said it during his lecture at MS. He even said what bug it was -- "C macro expanded inproperly" :-) Eugene
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.