Author: Pete Galati
Date: 20:37:47 12/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2000 at 22:13:11, Jim Monaghan wrote: >On December 21, 2000 at 17:06:55, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>On December 21, 2000 at 16:03:09, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>The question is if it can win with Rxh2. >> >>That's a valid question. >>Remeber however it wasn't the question "will black win with this move" but "will >>black *find* the move", and it did; >>If Rxh2 loses badly it can also be an indication of extremely bad calculating. >> >>If. If. >> >>>If it find Rxh2 but is losing with this move against other programs then I do >>>not consider it as a solution. >> >>That remark is bungling in the air a bit. >> >>What would be the reason for that? That statement is more speculative than the >>one made in the original post. What is relevance of the remark? That goes for >>anything: if the shoepolish machine starts polishing your shoes, but stops in >>between, your shoes won't be polished and I won't consider it a shoe polish >>machine. >>But *why* should the shoe polish machine doesn't do it's work properly? Is there >>any indication the shoe polish machine will stop, without seeing it working -and >>failing- a lot of cycles? >> >>Based on the way a chess engine works -including CS Tal II- the chances any >>chess program finding a winning move and winning with it are bigger than the >>chances it finds a (*any*) winning move and still loses. >>A winning move is in most cases the beginning of a tactical sequence and no >>doubt an engine will calculate that right with greater chance than failing along >>the way; >> >>Anyhow, regardless of your own ideas about it, my message simply stated CS Tal >>found the move asked for in 44 seconds, what no other engine did so far. >> >>Jeroen ;-} > >You answered the question precisely Jeroen, I was more interested in an engine >considering the move as opposed to it's correctness (although that too is >interesting) ... the human element as Pete notes later. Your arguement was >fascinating ... it got me thinking though ... that what if a tree fell on the >shoe polish machine, but no one was there to see it, did it really happen? > >Jim :-)) With any luck it would be a Black Walnut tree. Question is, would it make a sound. You know Fritz took a very quick look at Rxh2, but threw out that idea pretty fast, never got back to it. Pete [D]r1b3k1/pp1n3p/2pbpq1r/3p4/2PPp1p1/PP2P1P1/1BQN1P1P/3RRBK1 b - - 0 1 1...Rxh2 ± (0.94) Depth: 1/12 00:00:00 1...Rxh2 2.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 3.Bg2 Qxg3+ 4.Kh1 +- (2.06) Depth: 1/18 00:00:00 1...dxc4 +- (1.62) Depth: 1/18 00:00:00 1...dxc4 2.bxc4 ² (0.50) Depth: 1/18 00:00:00 1...e5 ² (0.47) Depth: 1/18 00:00:00 1...e5 2.dxe5 Nxe5 3.cxd5 cxd5 = (-0.22) Depth: 1/18 00:00:00 1...e5 2.Bg2 = (-0.09) Depth: 2/10 00:00:00 1...e5 2.Bg2 b6 3.dxe5 Bxe5 4.Bxe5 Nxe5 5.cxd5 cxd5 = (-0.06) Depth: 3/14 00:00:01 1kN 1...e5 2.Bg2 b6 3.dxe5 Bxe5 4.Bxe5 Nxe5 5.cxd5 cxd5 = (-0.06) Depth: 4/15 00:00:03 6kN 1...e5 2.Bg2 b6 3.dxe5 Bxe5 4.Bxe5 Nxe5 5.cxd5 cxd5 = (-0.06) Depth: 5/19 00:00:10 16kN 1...Rh5! = (-0.09) Depth: 5/19 00:00:14 22kN 1...Rh5 2.Be2 Qg6 3.Bf1 e5 4.Bg2 = (0.00) Depth: 6/22 00:00:20 54kN 1...e5! = (-0.03) Depth: 6/22 00:00:21 64kN 1...Qf5! = (-0.06) Depth: 6/25 00:00:22 115kN 1...Qf5 2.Bg2 Rf6 3.Rf1 e5 4.dxe5 Nxe5 5.cxd5 cxd5 = (-0.19) Depth: 7/33 00:00:22 243kN [more Qf5 through SD 17]
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.