Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 09:05:17 01/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2002 at 10:47:51, Uri Blass wrote: >> 10.01 0:27 -2.15 1.Nxb5 Rf5 2.Qb7 g3 3.gxf3 Qh6 4.Kf1 Qh1+ 5.Ke2 Qxd1+ >>6.Kxd1 g2 7.Ke2 g1Q 8.Qe4 Qg6 9.Nd6 Rf8 10.Nxc4 Qxe4+ 11.fxe4 Bxd4 (9.714.038) >>356.6 >> 10.02 0:29 -2.14++ 1.Re1 fxg2 2.Kxg2 Qf5 3.Qxf5+ Rxf5 4.Ne4 Bxd4 5.Kg3 Rxf2 >>6.Kxg4 (10.582.050) 355.3 >This is what shredder6(64 mbytes hash) >did in the game that was posted >it used almost 2 minutes on 1600 mhz and got depth 11 but could not >avoid Nxb5 when your shredder6 could avoid Nxb5 at depth 10. > >note that I have not shredder6 but I suspect that >shredder6 may have some hash table bug after seeing it. Such behaviour does not need to be a bug. In a different thread as an anser to your question, GCP and myself gave some examples, why different hash table size (and history of "prefilled entries") can make engines find moves at different depthes. Both things can happen: less HT size makes the engine find the move faster, as well as more HT size. I think, the more "search tricks" an engine uses, the more often one can see such behaviour. Also it seems, that your cited analysis was from the game, while Ingo's analysis was from the setup position. Regards, Dieter
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.