Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 02:06:57 01/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2001 at 02:03:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 04, 2001 at 22:26:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 04, 2001 at 18:36:15, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>21.Nf3 Bc6 22.Nh4 g5 23.Ng6+ Kh7 24.Nxf8+ Rxf8 25.Bxe6 Bd7 >>> ± (1.06) Depth: 19/47 19:04:48 42992526kN >>>21.e5 >>> ± (1.09) Depth: 19/47 21:54:31 49601048kN >>>21.e5 dxe5 22.Ne4 Nh5 23.Qg4 Nf4 24.Nf3 Qc7 25.Nh4 Bc6 >>> ± (1.31) Depth: 19/50 26:22:52 60316211kN >>> >>>(Lee, Pensacola,Fl 04.01.2001) >>>System 800Mhz Athlon 256Mb pc-133 128MBHT >>> >>>I think LG2000 v3 might do better >> >>That's pretty wimpy given that the score only increased by 0.23 when finding a >>move that absolutely wins tactically, but at least it found it. >> >>bruce > >I think that the line is not correct and I guess that 23.Qg6 is the right move. >It is interesting to know how much time do programs need to find 23.Qg6 and how >much time do they need to see a winning score for this move(I assume that 22.Ne4 >is the right move but the main line of Ferret does not tell information about it >because it does not give the killer move for 21...dxe5 because the main line >began with 21.e5 Nh5) > >Uri I looked at this the opposite way and it takes 1 extra ply to change from Qg4 to the move spassky played so the qg4 choice is trivial.. I noticed another position that takes a deep search at least for fritz from a game it lost to an IM. I will post that as soon as i can. 19ply to play like spassky and around the same amount for this IM....
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.