Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 14:36:25 08/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2000 at 16:33:38, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >Hi Peter, > >>This position is what could have happened in Nimzo - Shredder in London. >>Is from the possible variation 24...Qxb4 25.Qxd5 >> >>Even this position requires 13ply (about 7.5 hours on my P133) for Lambchop to >>return a really bad score (see output below). I'd be interested in how other >>programs go on this position. (Note the terrible branching factor at depth 12 >>and 13) >> >>[D]r3rb1k/6p1/p2p3p/1ppQ4/Pq6/5NRP/5PP1/1B2R1K1 b - - >> >> _______________________ Black to play >> 8 |br|__|__|__|br|bb|__|bk| >> 7 |__|__|__|__|__|__|bp|__| >> 6 |bp|__|__|bp|__|__|__|bp| >> 5 |__|bp|bp|WQ|__|__|__|__| >> 4 |WP|bq|__|__|__|__|__|__| >> 3 |__|__|__|__|__|WN|WR|WP| >> 2 |__|__|__|__|__|WP|WP|__| >> 1 |__|WB|__|__|WR|__|WK|__| >> a b c d e f g h >> >>Depth, score, time, nodes >> >> 0 0 0 0 e8e1 >> 1 204 0 57 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 >> 2 204 0 228 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 >> 3 225 0 487 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 a8e8 >> 4 280 0 1451 e8e1 f3e1 a8e8 g1h2 b4b1 >> 5 209 100 5007 e8e1 f3e1 a8e8 d5f5 e8e1 g1h2 h8g8 f5h7 g8f7 h7g6 f7e7 >> 6 209 200 10404 e8e1 f3e1 a8e8 d5f5 e8e1 g1h2 h8g8 >> 7 73 700 68142 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1b1 d5a8 b1f5 g3f3 f5e5 h2h1 >> 8 73 1100 118111 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1e8 d5d3 g7g6 >> 9 32 2600 286579 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1e8 g3e3 e8b8 d5f5 d6d5 h2h1 g7g6 f5g >>6 >>10 -25 7200 826264 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1e8 g3e3 e8d8 d5d3 g7g6 d3g6 a8a7 b1a >>2 >>11 32 14700 1740365 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1e8 g3e3 e8b8 d5f5 g7g6 f5g6 b8b7 >> >>12 -19 441600 53229976 e8e1 f3e1 b4e1 g1h2 e1e8 g3e3 e8d8 d5d3 g7g6 d3g6 d8d7 b >>1e4 d6d5 g6f6 h8g8 >> >>13 -112 2648900 320991614 e8e1 f3e1 a8e8 d5f5 e8e1 g1h2 h8g8 f5h7 g8f7 g3f3 f7e8 >>Q b1g6 e8d7 f3f8 e1e7 a4b5 a6b5 h7g8 b4c4 g6f5 d7c7 > >"DarkThought WCCC'99" behaves similarly (fail low in iteration 13 >with horrible branching factor) but searches much fewer nodes >overall (roughly 70% less). Interesting that for depth 11 our scores practically agreed but I used much less nodes than you. Then my search went really crazy! My hash table was only 10mb, not sure if this had much impact. I'm planning on running this again on a computer at work to see how it goes with a bigger hash table. BTW, I ordered your book last week, looking forward to reading it! > >11.01 Rxe1+ Nxe1 Qxe1+ Kh2 Qe8 Qd3 g6 Rxg6 Ra7 Qc3+ =0.30 #5696851 >12.01 Rxe1+ Nxe1 Qxe1+ Kh2 Qe8 Qd3 g6 Rxg6 Ra7 Qc3+ =0.30 #7826020 >13.01 Rxe1+ Nxe1 Qxe1+ Kh2 Qe8 <=0.05? #34880082 >13.01? Rxe1+ Nxe1 Qxe1+ Kh2 Qe8 Re3 Qb8 Qf5 d5+ Kh1 =-1.20 #90342321 > >Cheers, > >=Ernst=
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.