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.