Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:27:37 10/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2001 at 22:17:12, K. Burcham wrote: > >in this position, Deep Blue plays 22...g4. >shredder5 in this position would play 22...Bg6, at depth 17/34 >what does your program play, with deep search? > > >(1) Kasparov,G - Deep Blue [A07] >IBM Man vs Machine New York (1), 03.05.1997 >[John Nunn] > > > [D] 3rr1k1/1p1n1p2/1qp2n1p/p1b1p1pb/4P3/PP2N1PP/1BP2PB1/R1Q1RNK1 b - - > > >"The computer desperately seeks to disturb White's plan. The computer has no concept of desperation. >Although this move >creates further kingisde weaknesses, it enable Black to develop some piece >activity. This is the critical phase. Everybody who has played a computer knows >the scenario: you get a strategically winning position, the computer makes some >desperate tactical lunge, you make a couple of inaccuracies and suddenly the >machine is all over you". (comment by Frederic Friedel) No argument there! ChessMaster 8000 output: Time Depth Score Positions Moves 0:00 1/3 -0.04 2059 1...Bd4 2. Nd2 Bg6 0:00 2/6 0.02 42104 1...Bd4 2. Nd2 Bg6 3. c3 Bc5 4. Qc2 Nf8 0:01 3/7 0.16 124547 1...Bd4 2. Nd2 Bg6 3. c3 Bc5 4. Qc2 Nf8 5. Ndc4 0:03 3/7 0.09 268740 1...g4 2. h4 Bg6 3. Qd2 Nf8 4. Qe2 a4 5. Nd2 Bxe3 6. fxe3 axb3 7. cxb3 0:06 3/8 0.10 598533 1...g4 2. Nd2 gxh3 3. Bxh3 Qc7 4. c4 Bd4 5. Nf5 Nc5 6. Nxh6+ Kg7 0:10 3/8 0.02 981004 1...Bg6 2. Nd2 Qc7 3. Bc3 b5 4. b4 Bd4 5. Qb2 0:18 4/9 0.15 1798706 1...Bg6 2. Nd2 Qc7 3. Bc3 Bd4 4. Qb2 Nb6 5. Rad1 Bxc3 6. Qxc3 1:10 4/10 0.14 6627204 1...Bg6 2. Nd2 Qc7 3. Bc3 Bd4 4. Qb2 Nb6 5. Rad1 Qe7 6. Nf5 Bxf5 7. exf5 Bxc3 8. Qxc3 4:05 5/11 0.11 24328715 1...Bg6 2. Nd2 Qc7 3. Qd1 Bd4 4. c3 Ba7 5. b4 Nb6 6. Qe2 Qd6 7. Nec4 Nxc4 8. Nxc4 14:02 6/12 0.03 88355386 1...Bg6 2. Nd2 Qc7 3. Bc3 Bd4 4. Qb2 Nc5 5. Nf5 Bxf5 6. exf5 Qd7 7. b4 Bxc3 8. Qxc3 Qxd2 9. Qxc5 I suspect that more interesting would be the analysis of these: [D]3rr1k1/1p1n1p2/1qp2n1p/p1b1p2b/4P1p1/PP2N1PP/1BP2PB1/R1Q1RNK1 w - - [D]3rr1k1/1p1n1p2/1qp2nbp/p1b1p1p1/4P3/PP2N1PP/1BP2PB1/R1Q1RNK1 w - - Which are the aftermaths of the two choices. Often, when a computer will pound away for days on some position looking for an appropriate bm, it won't find it. But if you instead have it analyze the best choice, it will find it in 1/100th of the time. Not sure why it works that way.
This page took 0.01 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.