Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:42:23 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 18:24:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 16, 2001 at 17:38:05, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 16, 2001 at 16:30:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 2001 at 16:15:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 16, 2001 at 00:36:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>Vincent emailed me and asked me to run these. I ran them on a quad 450 Xeon. >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/p4bpk/7p/3rq3/3Npp2/PPQ3P1/3R1PKP/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>I get gxf4 until ply 10, after which there is a switch to b4, which is a bad >>>>>move. This fails low to -3.88 in ply 11, and gxf4 comes back with a score of >>>>>-2.48. >>>>> >>>>>Later in ply 11, f3 pops up with a score of -2.33. >>>>> >>>>>Up to here takes 89 seconds. >>>>> >>>>>f3 sticks until ply 14, at which point if fails low to -4.24, and gxf4 comes >>>>>back with a score of -3.21, resolving after about 1/2 hour. >>>>> >>>>>In ply 15, gxf4 fails low again, and the hour ended with no resolution. It was >>>>><= -3.46. >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/p4bpk/7p/3rq3/3Npp2/PPQ2PP1/3R2KP/8 b - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>In this one, I have exf3+, with a score of +2.35 in ply 10. After 16 seconds, >>>>>in ply 10, it finds Bh5, failing high to +2.80. >>>>> >>>>>Ply 11 was uneventful, but in ply 12, Bh5 failed high to +4.24. >>>>> >>>>>The score creeps up slightly, and the last score I got in the hour was +4.99, >>>>>ply 15, after about 45 minutes. >>>>> >>>>>I'll run the first one again all night and see what happens. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>thanks! >>>> >>>>It confirms already what i suspected. f3 is losing >>>>way harder than alternatives! >>>> >>>>I do not understand why ferret needs a ply more to get -4.24 for f3 >>>>than when after f3 is getting played. Possible to shine any light onto >>>>this? >>> >>>I don't see that you can draw that conclusion at all, especially in light of >>>this: >>> >>> ply milliseconds score line >>>no 17 27657860 -433 -1221224784 gxf4 Qxf4 Kh1 Rh5 f3 exf3 Nxf3 Rh3 Rf2 >>> Bd5 Rg2 g5 Qd3+ Qe4 Qxe4+ Bxe4 Nd2 Bxg2+ >>> Kxg2 Rd3 Ne4 Rxb3 a4 Rb4 Nc5 Rb2+ Kg3 >>> -- >>>no 17 41753610 -499 666953819 gxf4 Qxf4 f3 Bh5 Kf1 e3 Re2 Rxd4 Rxe3 >>> Rd1+ Re1 Qxf3+ Qxf3 Bxf3 Rxd1 Bxd1 b4 Kg6 >>> Kf2 Bc2 Ke3 Kf5 b5 >>>no 17 50832840 -494 -1178700567 f3 Bh5 g4 e3 Rd1 Bg6 Qc4 e2 Re1 Rxd4 Qxe2 >>> Qxe2+ Rxe2 Rd3 b4 Rxa3 h4 Bd3 Rd2 Rc3 Kh3 >>> >>>Column 4 (node count) is broken and should be ignored. >>> >>>gxf4 failed low to -4.99 in ply 17, and f3 overtook it at -4.94. So mine would >>>play f3 after 50,832 seconds. >>> >>>bruce >> >>I think the differece between f3 and gxf4 is a positional difference and we have >>no logfiles of dep blue from that game so it may be interesting to look at the >>following position >> >>[D]Rr6/5kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 w - - 0 1 >> >>Here is Deeper blue logfile >> >>--------------------------------------- >>hash guess Rb7b8,Guessing Rb8 >> 8(4) #[Ra6](156)[Ra6](156) 156^ T=0 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >> 8(6) #[Ra6](128)########################## 128 T=3 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >> 9(6) #[Ra6](128)###########<ch> 'rb8' >>[183 sec (main.c:1847)][cont]############### 128 T=10 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >>10(6) #[Ra6](158)[Ra6](158) 158^ T=17 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >>10(6) #[Ra6](158)########################## 158 T=34 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >>11(6) #[Ra6](156)########################## 156 T=99 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Kf7g8 be4d5 Kg8h7 ra6a7 Rb8c8 ra7b7 Ph6h5 rb7b5P Kh7h6 rb5b7 >>Rc8c7 rb7b8 >>12(6) #[Ra6](162)[TIMEOUT] 162 T=192 >>ra8a6 Qb6c6q pd5c6Q Rb8c8 be4d5 Kf7e7 ra6a5 Bd6c7 ra5b5P Ke7d6 bd5f3 Kd6e7 rb5c5 >>Rc8a8 bf3d5 Ke7d6 >> >>You can see that the evaluation of Deeper blue at depth 12(6) was 1.62 pawn for >>white. > >pawn in deep blue was 128 bob said: > 162 / 128 = 1.27 > >I will let diep run overnight at it. Note that I preceeded that with "I believe" since Deep Thought used pawn=128 and this was well documented. I am not _sure_ about deep blue, however. > >>I am interested to know the evaluation of Ferret at depth 18 in order to compare >>with deeper blue. >> >>It may be interesting to see also the evaluation of Ferret when you increase the >>value of pieces that are not pawns to 150% of their normal value(programs may >>find quickly that black gets 2 pawns for the piece after Ra6 Qe3 so in order to >>prevent finding Ra6 Qe3 for these reasons I suggest to increase the value of >>pieces that are not pawns) >> >>I ask for Ferret's evaluation at depth 18 because other programs do not use >>singular extensions. >> >>I suspect that Ferret can find Ra6 Qe3 in both cases at depth that is smaller >>than 18 and that it can also cahnges it's mind later to Qd7+ >> >>Uri
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.