Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 04:07:31 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 05:31:18, Uri Blass wrote: >No >If you extend a full ply for every singular move by 0.25 pawn you will never >finish your search. Want me to _prove_ your out-of-the-blue claims wrong again? My SE crafty extends a _full_ ply on a singular move and will do so up to 4 times the nominal depth, after which it extends with half plies. That means in a normal search I can see at least 40 ply deeper if needed. I could set it to 6 and go 60 ply deeper easily. And my searches terminate just fine. And my branching factor is fine too. >Ra6 is only slightly better than Rb8 >g6 is only slightly better than Nf7 Even if there are two that aren't singular (Hiarcs seesm to think they are) then there still quite a bunch of singulars in that mainline. Not 'very few' as you claimed. >Note that 29.Rb1 is probably a positional error based on Deep Fritz's opinion >and black gets more than 0.5 pawn advantage after that move. Could be. >The point of starting with Bg5 was to convince people that deep thought could >not see +2 advantage but it seems that you believe that deep thought was god and >no number of moves is going to convince you that deep thought could not see it. I'm going to be convinced when you find a saving defense for white after Bg5. In all the lines I analyzed I get either -1.5 or -2.3 depending on the program I use. That's right in line with what DT reported. >In that case it seems that the best way to convince you should be to start from >the game from the first move after c5. Perhaps yes, but I'm not very interested in keeping this analyzing for days on an end. You keep making unfouded claims and each time I refute them you just make new ones that are just as bogus. We can go on endlessy like this. I have better things to do than to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced in the first place. My original challenge stand. Find c5 with a significant advantage for black in 7 seconds, or shut up about not having a position where DB did better than todays comps. >I was not convinced that white is losing after 32.Bg5 but I feel more sure that >I can draw a correspondence game against you and your programs from the root >position and not from the position after 32.Bg5. Yes. That would mean a lot. A novice to correspondence play vs the local champion. Obviously the result would immediately mean that c5 doesn't win. We might as well start from the starting position. You take the white pieces. Let's prove 1.e4 wins! -- 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.