Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:00:52 01/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2001 at 00:52:04, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On January 07, 2001 at 12:05:11, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>Qg6 is better and i had already mention analizing in reverse ...at 23Qg6 is >>prefered over Qg4 at 16Ply so if i wanted to leave my computer running for 52 >>more hours it would've surely found Qg6 in the pv. >> >> >>you can try it but i answered your question already so i hope this helps you. >>Let me clear this up i let it sit for 26 hours fritz went to 19/50 ply it >>would've taken atleast 1 more ply to find Qg6 maybe 2 but no more as at move 23 >>it takes 16ply to find Qg6 , upto 15ply Qg4 is prefered ..... Qg6 is better > >If it takes 19 ply to find that one move is really the best move (e5 better than >Nf3, for example), then it might take 19 ply to find out that Qg4 is better than >Qg6, or it could be that you're right and Qg6 is really better. I'm not totally >convinced that a simple computer search from that position can tell us the right >answer, because both moves are probably winning, and it's obviously very deep. The whole idea is to mate black, and black of course can prevent that for quite a time with moves like Nh5. I get quite a good score for e5 real quick, but at bigger depths DIEP starts to get real happy about Nce2 and e5 one move later, which more or less is in some variations simply transposition, but score goes up from minus score to 0.80 nearly for Nce2 after some time, as that basically is doing the same as e5 the next move i don't see the difference quite clear, but sure direct e5 is more forcing though also taking more risk. Vincent
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.