Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:56:57 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 06:24:19, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >[Event "Odyssee2001-Tournament"] >[Site "k6-400, 40/120"] >[Date "2001.01.20"] >[Round "1"] >[White "Shredder4 Chessbits-style"] >[Black "Comet B27"] >[ECO "C99"] >[Result "*"] > >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 >b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 >12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nc6 14. Nb3 a5 15. Be3 a4 16. Nbd2 >Bd7 17. Nf1 Rfe8 18. Rc1 Qb7 19. Ng3 a3 20. b3 Rac8 21. Qd2 >exd4 22. Nxd4 d5 23. Nxc6 Bxc6 24. e5 Ne4 25. Bxe4 dxe4 >26. Nf5 Bf8 27. Nd6 Bxd6 28. exd6 Re6 29. Bf4 Rg6 30. Re3 >h6 31. Rec3 * > >after Rec3 shredder4 got a fail-low and comet first considered >about Rxg2 with positive score for black, but now has changed >mind and says 0.47 for white when playing Rxg2+. now comet >says +0.74 for white. > >anyway - interesting game too. I see that CometB27 had a lot of fail low by 0.27 at iteration 11. I think that the decision about this constant number is not a good decision and it is better to increase the number after failing low. Comet needs a long time to find e3 at depth 11 because of this decision and had not enough time at tournament time control when other programs have no problem to find e3 at tournament time control. Maybe Uli can change the 0.27 design decision for the next rounds and to use bigger numbers after failing low without solving the fail low problem. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.