Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 00:37:26 09/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 22:42:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. thanks, then it's probably 1.62 pawn > > > > >> >>>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.