Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:29:35 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 14:49:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 14:10:59, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 04, 2001 at 13:41:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 04, 2001 at 13:33:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 04, 2001 at 13:20:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 04, 2001 at 10:52:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 03, 2001 at 21:03:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 03, 2001 at 18:51:08, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 12 54.72 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>>> 12 2:00 -3.04 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfd8 3. Bxd8 Rxd8 >>>>>>> 4. Rd1 Rd5 5. Qe4 g6 6. Qb4 Qa6 7. >>>>>>> Qf4 >>>>>>> 12-> 3:19 -3.04 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfd8 3. Bxd8 Rxd8 >>>>>>> 4. Rd1 Rd5 5. Qe4 g6 6. Qb4 Qa6 7. >>>>>>> Qf4 >>>>>>> 13 3:43 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>>> 13 5:06 0.00 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Bxg7 Kxg7 >>>>>>> 4. Qf6+ Kf8 5. Rf1 Rc7 6. Bg6 Re8 7. >>>>>>> Qh8+ Ke7 8. Qf6+ Kf8 >>>>>>> 13 11:27 ++ 1. ... b4!! >>>>>>> 13 13:05 -0.76 1. ... b4 2. cxb4 Qd5 3. Rf1 Rae8 4. >>>>>>> Bf2 f5 5. exf6 Qxg2 6. Bd4 Rf7 7. Bxa7 >>>>>>> Qd5 >>>>>>> 13 13:40 ++ 1. ... Rfe8!! >>>>>>> 13 14:40 -2.30 1. ... Rfe8 2. Rf1 Qf8 3. Qe4 g6 4. >>>>>>> Kb2 Rec8 5. Bf6 Rc7 6. Qf4 Rd7 7. h4 >>>>>>> a5 8. Be4 >>>>>>> 13 15:40 -2.63 1. ... Rfc8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Qg4 c5 6. Bxb5 Rb8 7. g3 >>>>>>> Be4 >>>>>>> 13-> 16:21 -2.63 1. ... Rfc8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Qg4 c5 6. Bxb5 Rb8 7. g3 >>>>>>> Be4 >>>>>>> time=16:39 cpu=100% mat=-3 n=596994678 fh=91% nps=597k >>>>>>> ext-> chk=29940411 cap=1174947 pp=514823 1rep=4254557 mate=419833 >>>>>>> predicted=0 nodes=596994678 evals=102285376 >>>>>>> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >>>>>>>Black(1): quit >>>>>>>execution complete. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Mine looks a bit different on the quad. 2:18 to drop Qxa3. Note that I used >>>>>>hash=192M for the run... >>>>>> >>>>>> 12 38.66 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>> 12 1:27 -1.65 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Bxg7 Kxg7 >>>>>> 4. Qf6+ Kf8 5. Bg6 Rc7 6. Rf1 Re8 7. >>>>>> Qh8+ Ke7 8. Rxf7+ Kd8 9. Qxe8+ Kxe8 >>>>>> 10. Rxc7+ Kd8 11. Rxb7 Qxc3 12. Rxa7 >>>>>> Qxe5 >>>>>> 12 2:18 ++ 1. ... a5!! >>>>>> 12 3:39 -2.57 1. ... a5 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Qg4 Qf8 4. >>>>>> Qe4 g6 5. Kb2 Qc5 6. Rd1 Ra6 7. Qf4 >>>>>> 12 4:07 -2.58 1. ... Rfb8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>> Kb2 c5 5. Qg4 g5 6. Bf2 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>> (4) 12-> 4:18 -2.58 1. ... Rfb8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>> Kb2 c5 5. Qg4 g5 6. Bf2 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>> (3) 13 5:25 -2.52 1. ... Rfb8 2. Kb2 Rc8 3. Rf1 Rc7 4. >>>>>> Qe4 g6 5. Rxf7 Rxf7 6. Qxg6+ Kf8 7. >>>>>> Qxh6+ Kg8 8. Qg6+ Rg7 9. Qxe6+ Rf7 >>>>>> 13 7:40 -2.54 1. ... Rfc8 2. Rf1 Qf8 3. Qe4 g6 4. >>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>> Rd7 8. h4 >>>>>> 13 8:00 -2.55 1. ... Rfe8 2. Kb2 Rab8 3. Rd1 Qf8 >>>>>> 4. Qe4 g6 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>> Qc5 >>>>>> (3) 13-> 8:00 -2.55 1. ... Rfe8 2. Kb2 Rab8 3. Rd1 Qf8 >>>>>> 4. Qe4 g6 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>> Qc5 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I will have some 64-cpu alpha numbers in a month or two. Working on a port >>>>>>to use UPC right now... Compaq is loaning me a single-cpu alpha to compile/test >>>>>>on with the target of a 64 cpu machine they have. I will try to get it on to >>>>>>ICC on a weekend maybe... Or maybe for the next CCT. :) >>>>> >>>>>Prophecy: >>>>>You will win the next WCCC[*] >>>>> >>>>>[*] Unless someone else does the same port. There is no other machine that even >>>>>comes close. >>>> >>>>I am not so sure that it is enough to win. >>>>In the last 2 WCCC tournament the biggest hardware did not win. >>>> >>>>Deep thought failed to win in 1995(Fritz3 was the champion) >>>>Deep Junior,Deep Fritz,Ferret failed to win in 1999 and Shredder won. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>In the last two WCCC's there were no programs that were _really_ searching >>>at 60M nodes per second either. :) >> >>Yes but in the WCCC of 1995 Fritz was also clearly slower and I also believe in >>diminishing returns so 2M against 60M is not the same as >>0.1M against 3M. >> >>Uri > > >I don't believe in "diminishing" returns when it is computer vs computer. Give >me that extra ply _any_ day. It will swing the match in my favor if my opponent >and I are equal at equal search depths. I believe in diminishing returns between different programs for the same reason that diminishing return may happen in comp-human games. At small depthes tactics dominates so the 30 times fastesr program usually wins. At big depthes there are things that one program understands and the second program does not understand when depth is not going to help. If 2 different programs have different positional weaknesses then the slower program has practical chances to win at big depthes. 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.