Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Nolot #5 revisited

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 11:01:27 01/02/01

Go up one level in this thread


On January 02, 2001 at 06:08:12, Uri Blass wrote:

>On January 02, 2001 at 04:20:12, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>On January 01, 2001 at 23:54:02, Pete Galati wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, I gave Comet 72 hours to look at this position, no changes for over a day,
>>>it never reached SD 17.  It was doing approx 60mb hashtables in Windows ME's
>>>Dos.  Comet seems quite sure that Nf3 is the correct move.  Personally, I would
>>>have worked on stacking the Queen's Rook over the Queen.
>>>
>>>There was 2 games between Spassky and Petrocian (spelling?) in Moscow in 1969
>>>with the same position.  The one that's 28 moves long is interesting because in
>>>that one Spassky got to take him apart for a few more moves and then things made
>>>more sense to me.
>>>
>>>Was e5 _really_ the best move?
>>
>>e5 is shattering.  I have no problem believing that it is the best move.
>>
>>bruce
>
>I agree that e5 is winning but I cannot see +5 advanatge for white even after
>some analyis with chess programs and the best that I can see is scores that are
>close to +3.

I ran it for several days on a quad processor, and I think that my program is
known for finding tactical combinations.

>It will be interesting to get a proving tree to the +5(I mean a tree when
>programs can see in every leaf of the tree in a few minutes +5 evaluation for
>white or at least +4).

I don't need to do that, the alpha-beta algorithm should do that for me.

>The score for the other nolot position is more convincing because black must
>follow the main line.

The score for that is perfectly convincing.  If the line it produced was +5, the
main line must be as bad or worse.  It is possible that the program will fail
low down to something a little lower than +5, but this is not very common with a
score like +5.  That's almost always a crush.

>I think that the Nxe6 problem is more easy to solve for chess programs because
>it is not hard to see a positive score after Nxe6 Qxe6 when it is hard to see a
>winning score even after e5 dxe5 Ne4 Nh5 Qg6.
>
>Junior5(p800) found Nxe6 after 46 minutes.
>It failed high with a score of 0.60(it did not solve the fail high).

That is fast, I think.

bruce

>
>I guess that it cannot find e5 based on an analysis with it.
>
>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.