Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 13:52:38 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 14:56:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 14:46:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On September 14, 2000 at 14:36:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:33:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:30:07, Dan Ellwein wrote: >>>>[SNIP] >>>>>I guess it would be impractical to run this test with opening book disabled... >>>>> >>>>>(startin' with the very first move have the computer think on its own)... >>>>> >>>>>but i wonder what the data would look like if you did... >>>>> >>>>>it may be that there would not be a cut-off at iteration 19... >>>> >>>>My guess is that in the first ten moves no program on earth can get to ply 19 >>>>unless it does a ludicrous amount of speculative pruning. Even 16 plies would >>>>be formidable. >>> >>> >>>We are close. >> >>Are we really? >> >>Let this run on the very fastest machine available to you: >>[D]r4r2/q1pb1pkp/1p1p2p1/2nPpP1P/2P1P3/p1N2P2/PP1Q4/2KR1BR1 w - - >> >>Please let me know when it gets to ply 16 >>;-) > >[D]r1bq1r2/ppp2pkp/3p2nn/2bN2NQ/2B1P3/8/PPp3PP/R1B2R1K w - - There is an easy win with 1.Nf6. Of course 1.Qxh6+ mates by force, but I think that is irrelevant. I'm always satisfied by an easy win (unless there is an easy mate that costs me little additional effort). If you think programs should feature a mate finder mode for problemists, that's fine, but in a regular chess game, that is not really practical. I do not view 1.Nf6 as a failure to solve the position. A human opponent would probably resign on the spot against 1.Nf6, so who cares?
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.