Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:11:57 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 06:58:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 27, 2001 at 03:51:22, Uri Blass wrote: > >>The only problem that it could not solve in a reasonable time >>is WAC 2 >>I guess that it needs depth 13 in order to solve it >>and the estimated time that >>it needs to get this depth is at least some hours. > >Nothing to worry about. WAC 2 is hard, both for search >and eval. I get it at ply 11-13 depending on the extensions. >Usually 10-30s on Athlon 1000. > >>The hardest problem for it >>(from the problems that it solved) was WAC 22 >>but I consider it as a positional problem because >>there are many moves that win a pawn for white to get equality >>in material. > >>Qh5 is one of them and my program found Nxf7 at depth 4 >>but changed it's mind at depth 6 to Qh5 only to change >>it's mind later again to Nxf7 at depth 7. > >I get +1 for white with Nxf7 at 13 ply. > >After playing out Qh5 I get g6 and BLACK up 0.70 pawns. > >So Qh5 looks a lot worse as Nxf7 for my program. > >-- >GCP I agree that Qh5 is worse than Nxf7 but for positional reasons If you use only material evaluation both moves lead to equality and My program has now no evaluation except piece square table and I prefer to test it to see that it has no bugs before adding new evaluation terms. There are other moves that lead to equality from material point of view and Ba2 that is written as one of the solution is one of them. Yace(only material) evaluates Qh5 as 0.00 and later changes it's mind to believe that it is losing material and later changes it's mind again to 0.00 so maybe my program found that qh5 is losing material and I did not check it (it only gives main line and score in the end of the iteration and I am going to change it). 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.