Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:28:28 08/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2001 at 06:22:29, Peter Berger wrote: You already say it. 45 10 and i bet you talk about a linux version that plays at 300Mhz hardware or something. Now try it at 40 in 2 at a 1.2Ghz machine! >On August 28, 2001 at 04:33:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>playing passive against diep is not the way to play against it, >>it will find a positional pattern and win! >> >Or maybe : playing passive against diep is just the right way to go as , it will >commit some tactical suicicide sooner or later and lose ! ;) > >Nice little example ( just because I analyzed it this morning ): you're talking about a 8 ply search depth or so at 45 10? I know in CCt3 i searched sometimes only 8 ply in crucial positions. in the past already was proven that those search depths are not enough to get through the tactical barrier! Note diep is tactical NOT so weak as you might think when diep gets 12 ply i solve the majority of NOLOT positions with diep. >[D]3rn3/6p1/2Pk1p1p/1p3B1P/4RK2/p5P1/P7/8 w - - 0 1 > >Here Diep played in an even position 72. Re6?? Kd5! 73. Rxe8?? . This was from a >game with 45/10 time control and Diep took more than a minute to come up with >this. > >Diep is a strong program but your claims sometimes get on the nerves a little. >Looking at recent games at the public championships or the performance of your >account diep on ICC with games 45 minutes and longer definitely doesn't suggest >that Diep has only problems with its opening book.
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.