Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 00:36:16 09/17/01
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... May i note that after f3 as a human i win blindfolded the endgame with e3 as this wins a piece and goes to KRB for black versus KR for white. Kasparov of course didn't even look to Bh5 because e3 won blindfolded for him. Note at 16 ply score here for gxf4 is -3.975 versus f3 was lower than -5.xx here So the best proof i have is the game! I'm pretty amazed that many programs till today have a king safety which is not adequate for this position to see that f3 bh5 is getting simply and soon mated. Best regards, Vincent
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.