Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 16:54:48 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 19:37:13, Uri Blass wrote: >I did not analyze all these lines but the interesting question is if there is a >limit of number of plies when you are going to say that it is perfectly >impossible that Deep thought could see so many plies forward. My point is that after c5 black has a _winning_ advantage, revolving around getting an extra passed pawn (not the win of a piece it seems). I don't really care how many plies it is. What matters to me is that DT saw it. And nobody else does. >It seems that you try to claim that Deep thought outsearched the top programs of >today by more than 30 plies. Why not? It outsearched Cray Blitz by 20 plies. Cray Blitz wasn't exactly a pansy as far as search is concerned. >Remember that the discussion is not only about the question if Bg5 could save >the game but on the question if deep thought could see that c5 is winning. It did. It had a +2 score for it. >It is clear to me that if there is a win the win is positional and the number of >plies is so big that deep thought had no chance to see it. It is clear to me you are in denial. Winning a passed pawn is hardly what I call a positional win. Nearly all lines I posted are forced. There are only a few fancy moves: Bd7/Bg7/c4/Nd3 >It is important to give your opponent hours to search for every move >in the game. >I do not want to check moves that the computer got by searching for only few >minutes. In that case, it should be trivial for someone as experienced as you to refute all our analysis right? Please do so, or shut up claiming that c5 doesn't win. -- GCP
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.