Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:51:24 03/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2002 at 15:21:49, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>On March 24, 2002 at 14:33:49, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On March 24, 2002 at 12:54:29, pavel wrote:
>>
>>>34... Nc2+ {(Rxg5) -2.65/11 518} 35. Kd1 {-1.34/12 15}
>>
>>I do not understand the reason that shredder used only 15 seconds for 35.Kd1
>>when ponder is off.
>>There is no obvious best move and 35.Kf1 is also a move to consider.
>
>I think, it is a typical time usage of Shredder for "easy moves". I have been
>surprised by this, too in some games I looked at.
>
>When I start Shredder to analyse the 2 best moves in this position, I get:
>
>[German piece symbols]
> 12 3:53 -1.48 35.Kd1 Se3+ 36.fxe3 fxe3 37.Lxe3 dxe3 38.Dxe3 Le8 39.Ta1 Lh5
>40.Lxb7 (10.091.277) 43.2
> 12 5:22 -2.94 35.Kf1 Se3+ 36.Lxe3 fxe3 37.f3 c6 38.Le4 Txg5 39.Dc8+ Kg7
>40.Lxg6 Txg6 (13.963.951) 43.2
>
>This is the depth reported in the PGN. So, it looks not unlikely, that this 1.5
>pawn difference can trigger an "easy move time usage" (although I think, that it
>will be done in a different manner technically).
>
>Regards,
>Dieter
I think that such a definition of "easy move" is absolutely insane. Too many
positions that look like one move is 1.5 better for the first N iterations,
only to fail low later. This has happened to me in an ACM event in the past.
"easy" ought to be a recapture that is forced, with no fail lows allowed as it
might not be best to actually play the recapture at deep depths...
Seems like a bug (or design flaw) to me...
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.