Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: DIEP in WMCCC2000 London - long story

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:01:57 08/29/00

Go up one level in this thread


On August 29, 2000 at 15:11:55, Uri Blass wrote:

>On August 29, 2000 at 14:14:51, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 29, 2000 at 11:50:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On August 29, 2000 at 11:44:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can say that Fritz did not get a winning position out of book against Crafty.
>>>>
>>>>I found that Crafty17.11 can find 21.Nxe6 against Fritz with more time.
>>>>[D]1r2kb1r/2qb1p2/p3pP2/1pp5/3NP2p/P1N2Q2/2P4P/1K1R1BR1 w k - 0 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately Crafty did not have good alpha that it probably needed in order to
>>>>find this move.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Oh well Fritz searching 13 ply extending lots of checks and doing
>>>checks in qsearch against crafty with crafty a king nearly mated and
>>>searching 12 to 13 ply without doing checks in qsearch. Note that
>>>fritz has also a lot of threat extensions.
>>>
>>>Crafty repeated exactly the same line as against Nimzo. Very dumb.
>>>
>>>So it was dead lost from all sides.
>>>
>>>Play 100 games crafty here against DIEP, Fritz, Nimzo, Zchess, SOS,
>>>Shredder or anything that is doing either a lot of checks or doing
>>>checks in qsearch. Bye Bye crafty. Crafty in Najdorf is a zero in advance
>>>at icc it basically plays e6 d6 systems. NOT aggressive najdorf systems.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think checks in the q-search is an exaggerated advantage.  I play all of
>>the above programs on ICC, all the time, and I am not getting rolled into a
>>ball by any of them.n  Didn't you play a bunch of games vs crafty using a
>>quad 550 xeon for Diep?  Did those q-search checks make a big difference?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>So selecting this opening is stupid in advance anyway, like i discovered
>>>with DIEP in Caro-Kann.
>>
>>
>>I don't think it is a bad opening.  I generally don't play the Sicilian as
>>black against computers.  As white, I alternate between d4 and e4 openings
>>so black will get a chance to play Sicilians.  At a reasonable time control,
>>my quad will find nxe6.  My PII/400 notebook fails low at 5 minutes.  The
>>xeon would probably fail low at the 1-1.5 min mark.  It would then use as
>>much time as needed and would certainly find Nxe6.  I am surprised that the
>>alpha didn't have time to find this, or at least have time to fail low at
>>depth-14, which is strange.
>
>I see from the pgn file that the alpha used only 75 seconds for playing and if
>you add pondering time it is 75+38=113 seconds.
>
>I think that Crafty simply did not use enough time for this move.
>
>The time control was 120 minutes/60 moves.

If this is true, something was wrong.  The absolute shortest search time
it should have set was 2 minutes (120/60).  In reality, it should have set
a significantly larger target after following book for a few moves.  I will
have to see the logs (Hope Graham saved them or can get them) to see what
went wrong.



>
>I suspect that Crafty uses more time in 120 minutes per game than in 120 minutes
>per 60 moves(at least this is the situation under chessbase interface) and it is
>not logical.

It should not happen.  in game/120, it will use about 1/25th of the total time
for the first move, 1/25th of the time remaining for the next move, etc.  In
60/120, with no book, it should never use less than 2 minutes, except for
obvious recaptures.

One possible explanation: I told Graham how to set an "operator cushion" so
that he would have a little time to recover from an error.  It is possible
that I told him the wrong way to do this.  IE I could see him asking for 5
minutes for an operator cushion, and getting something else...





>
>Uri



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.