Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:07:42 01/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2001 at 08:33:46, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 14, 2001 at 20:37:39, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On January 14, 2001 at 17:36:21, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>>There is no problem. I suspect more than a few programs find Rxc6 in reasonable >>>times. The first program I tried actually found it quickly, the second too, >>>Crafty and Yace. Some others will find it later some sooner. Nothing tricky >>>about this position at all. >>> >>>Regards Dan Andersson >> >> >>Actually I believe that the position IS tough for some programs -- just look at >>the commercials listed that did not find the winning move. Of the programs that >>I tested the quickest was Patzer 3.11b which found 1.Rxc6 in a second! Also >>quick were Deep Fritz (about 20 sec), Gandalf 4.32g (20 sec), Ikarus (around 25 >>sec), Fritz 5.32 (about 25 sec too), etc. Some other programs could not find >>the sequence at all. The issue here is mobility, I suspect. I had thought that >>Phalanx would be fast, but after a minute passed and it had no clue, I gave it >>up. >> >>*** Djordje > >I don't understand why this can be hard. My program Chezzz is definitely weaker >than DF, Gandalf, Fritz 5.32, and probably some or all of the others you >mention, but still, Rxc6 is the _only_ move it ever considers, even at depth=1. >It never considers any other move at all. This takes 0.02 seconds on my Cel 464. I do not understand why your program considers Rxc6 even at depth 1 because this move is losing material at depth 1. I suspect that your program is not materialistic enough and can play sacrifices that are not correct. 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.