Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:40:56 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 22:40:59, Robert Hyatt 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 > > >This is part of the problem in trying to compare anything. Vincent is assuming >way too much. namely that f3 is worse. Based on some short searches from his >program. These need many plies to see what is _really_ going on. And trying to >make a point that f3 was horrible (as played by DB) is a mistake without some >real evidence. Your program seems to suggest the opposite, that f3 was the >_right_ move... This is all hooey. White should just resign, end of story. Dave
This page took 0.04 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.