Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:54:13 05/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1998 at 11:55:37, Amir Ban wrote:
>On May 13, 1998 at 08:00:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>
>>Big surprise was that Diep played so well in blitz in Paris,
>
>[snip]
>
>>Against Junior diep had a totally won
>>position, but then diep searched 5 seconds for a move, played it and
>>lost. at second 6 it would have gotten a fail low. 6 ply ain't enough to
>>see tactically everything. But in that position 6 ply would have been
>>enough
>>to win it.
>
>
>Vincent, I'm real busy now. Why do I have to waste time to correct your
>statements ?
>
>The Paris game Diep-Junior is below. Diep plays 32.Qc1 and loses
>immediately. It has better moves (say R1a5 or Rxb7), but this gives
>white equality at best. I'll take black here anytime.
>
>Pity Qc1 didn't work out. It was a real crushing move ! I'm a bit
>puzzled how you managed to play it. I looked what level I need to find
>32...Nd3 and I find it in depth 1. Perhaps I can find it in quiescence
>only. If you can't avoid such moves in 5 seconds, I suggest a major
>redesign of your program.
>
>
>[Event "?"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "?"]
>[Round "5"]
>[White "Diep"]
>[Black "Junior"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[ECO "?"]
>
>1. d4 d5 2. a3 Bf5 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Ne2 Ne7 6. Nd2 Nbc6
>7. c4 O-O 8. Bg3 a5 9. c5 Bxg3 10. hxg3 Qd7 11. Nf3 b6 12. Rc1 Rfb8
>13. Qd2 b5 14. Nf4 a4 15. Bd3 h6 16. Bxf5 exf5 17. Qe2 b4 18. axb4 Rxb4
>19. Ra1 Qc8 20. Nd3 Rbb8 21. Ra3 Qe8 22. Qc2 Nb4 23. Nxb4 Rxb4 24. O-O
>Qb5
>25. Rb1 Rb8 26. Qd1 Nc6 27. Nh4 g6 28. Rba1 Rxb2 29. Rxa4 Kh7 30. Ra6
>Nb4
>31. Ra7 Rb7 32. Qc1 Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb6 35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1
>Ng4
>37. Qc1 Qb3 38. Qe1 Nxe3 39. Kh1 Qd3 40. Nf3 Rxg2 41. Qxe3 Qxe3 42. Kxg2
>Qe2
>43. Kh3 Qxf3 44. Kh2 Qf2 45. Kh1 Qxg3 46. Rf1 f4 47. Ra1 Qf3 48. Kg1 Qe3
>49. Kh1 Qe4 50. Kh2 Qe2 51. Kh1 f3 0-1
>
>
>Amir
I agree. My "broken quiescence search" (Vincent's words, not mine)
finds
this as follows, after white's move 32:
depth time score variation (1)
1 0.00 0.24 32. ... Nd3
1-> 0.00 0.24 32. ... Nd3
2 0.00 0.44 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7
2 0.00 0.47 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1
2-> 0.01 0.47 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1
3 0.04 0.68 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1
3-> 0.08 0.68 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1
4 0.09 0.44 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1
Kh8 35. Nf3
4-> 0.13 0.44 32. ... Rxa7 33. Qxb2 Rxa1+ 34. Qxa1
Kh8 35. Nf3
5 0.21 -- 32. ... Rxa7
5 0.25 0.14 32. ... Rxa7 33. Rxa7 Qe2 34. Qf1
Qxf1+
35. Kxf1 Rb1+ 36. Ke2 Rb2+ 37. Kf3
5 0.29 ++ 32. ... Nd3!!
5 0.30 1.64 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3
5-> 0.40 1.64 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3
6 0.47 1.77 32. ... Nd3 33. Qc3 Nxf2 34. Nf3
Rxa7
35. Rxa7 Ne4
6-> 0.61 1.77 32. ... Nd3 33. Qc3 Nxf2 34. Nf3
Rxa7
35. Rxa7 Ne4
7 0.74 1.68 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2
7-> 0.94 1.68 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2
8 1.15 1.82 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 Qc6
8-> 1.44 1.82 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Ne4 36. Kh2 Qc6
9 1.80 1.84 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1
9-> 2.42 1.84 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1
10 3.20 ++ 32. ... Nd3!!
10-> 4.89 2.13 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qf1
Nxf2
35. Nf3 Qb3 36. Qc1 c6 37. Qe1
11 7.09 2.33 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb3
35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1 Qb5 37. Qc1 Qe2
38. Nf3
11-> 10.08 2.33 32. ... Nd3 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. c6 Qb3
35. Qf1 Nxf2 36. Qe1 Qb5 37. Qc1 Qe2
38. Nf3
So it looks good at 1 ply, but turns *real* good after only .29 seconds.
It doesn't take much to find that. If you don't in 5 seconds, something
is seriously wrong...
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.