Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 15:08:01 08/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2000 at 18:01:54, Christoph Fieberg wrote: >On August 10, 2000 at 17:46:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 10, 2000 at 17:22:58, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>On August 10, 2000 at 16:17:47, Christoph Fieberg wrote: >... >>>>Fritz 6 reached depth 5 after 9 hours!! (on Pentium III, 500 MHz, 32 MB Hash) He >>>>showed 61. Dxe4 Txe4 62. dxe4 Lxc5 3. Txg4 hxg4 as best moves (+1.56 for White). >>>>What is the best move? >>>> >>>>Christoph >>> >>>nine hours to get to depth _five_ ? hard to understand. I think something is >>>wrong. >> >>It is very easy to understand. >>If a program does a lot of extensions it need 9 hours to get to depth 5. >> >>The position that was posted is a position when some programs do a lot of >>extensions because there are a lot of possible captures. >> >>The position is not position from a practical game and I do not know about cases >>when there were so many captures in a practical games. >> >>Uri > >Interesting question. What practical game had the position with the most >possible captures? > >I would also dare to say that the position I invented is very close to the >absolut maximum. Who can invent a position where Fritz would need even more time >to reach depth 5? > >Christoph My Fritz 5.32 took less than 10 seconds to find the mate, and Hiarcs took 5 seconds, Fritz 6 took 8 seconds, Junior 6 took 18 seconds, Nimzo 7.32 found it almost immediately. Something must be wrong with your program.
This page took 0.01 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.