Author: Slater Wold
Date: 16:22:52 04/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2002 at 19:09:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 13, 2002 at 19:01:06, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On April 13, 2002 at 16:24:05, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 13, 2002 at 15:36:27, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On April 13, 2002 at 02:08:18, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D]r2qk2r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/4n3/1b6/3P2PP/PPPN1PB1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 11 >>>>> >>>>>In this position Deeper Blue found h5 in 121 seconds. After Murray moved, >>>>>Kasparov looked at him in disarray. After the match, Kasparov said "Sometimes >>>>>the computer plays very human moves." >>>>> >>>>>The power supply to my new machine has not arrived yet, so I can only test this >>>>>move using Fritz 7. It found h5 in 11:47 and played it through the 15th ply and >>>>>over 20 minutes. (On an AMD 1200mhz.) This move (h5) has been confirmed by >>>>>several masters to be the "best" move. Can anyone get it faster? >>>>> >>>>>This is move 11 from game 5 of the 1997 match. >>>> >>>> >>>> clearing hash tables >>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 855:00 (855:00) >>>> nss depth time score variation (1) >>>> 5-> 0.00 -0.12 1. ... O-O 2. O-O Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 >>>> 6 0.00 -0.27 1. ... O-O 2. O-O Bxd2 3. Bxd2 Qd4 >>>> 4. b4 Rad8 >>>> 6 0.00 -0.25 1. ... Qd6 2. f4 Ng6 3. c3 Bc5 4. Qe2 >>>> 6-> 0.00 -0.25 1. ... Qd6 2. f4 Ng6 3. c3 Bc5 4. Qe2 >>>> 7 0.00 -0.19 1. ... Qd6 2. a3 Bc5 3. f4 Qd4 4. Ne4 >>>> Ned7 5. Nxc5 Nxc5 >>>> 7-> 0.00 -0.19 1. ... Qd6 2. a3 Bc5 3. f4 Qd4 4. Ne4 >>>> Ned7 5. Nxc5 Nxc5 >>>> 8 0.00 -0.37 1. ... Qd6 2. O-O O-O-O 3. d4 Ng6 4. >>>> c3 Ba5 5. b4 >>>> 8 0.01 -0.35 1. ... Qc7 2. a3 Bd6 3. O-O O-O-O 4. >>>> d4 Ng6 5. Qe2 >>>> 8-> 0.03 -0.35 1. ... Qc7 2. a3 Bd6 3. O-O O-O-O 4. >>>> d4 Ng6 5. Qe2 >>>> 9 0.03 -0.19 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. Qe2 Kb8 >>>> 4. Re1 Bd6 5. a4 Nd5 >>>> 9-> 0.06 -0.19 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. Qe2 Kb8 >>>> 4. Re1 Bd6 5. a4 Nd5 >>>> 10 0.06 -0.28 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. a3 Bd6 4. >>>> Qe2 Kb8 5. d4 Ng6 6. Qc4 >>>> 10-> 0.17 -0.28 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. a3 Bd6 4. >>>> Qe2 Kb8 5. d4 Ng6 6. Qc4 >>>> 11 0.21 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. d4 Ng6 4. >>>> a4 Kb8 5. Nc4 Rd7 6. Bg5 Rhd8 >>>> 11-> 0.41 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O O-O-O 3. d4 Ng6 4. >>>> a4 Kb8 5. Nc4 Rd7 6. Bg5 Rhd8 >>>> 12 0.69 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O h5 3. Ne4 O-O-O 4. >>>> Qe2 Kb8 5. a4 h4 6. Nxf6 gxf6 <HT> >>>> 12-> 1.38 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. O-O h5 3. Ne4 O-O-O 4. >>>> Qe2 Kb8 5. a4 h4 6. Nxf6 gxf6 <HT> >>>> 13 3.19 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. Qe2 h5 3. d4 Bxd2+ 4. >>>> Bxd2 Ng6 5. O-O-O O-O-O 6. c3 Kb8 7. >>>> Kb1 h4 8. Qd3 <HT> >>>> 13-> 5.34 -0.26 1. ... Qc7 2. Qe2 h5 3. d4 Bxd2+ 4. >>>> Bxd2 Ng6 5. O-O-O O-O-O 6. c3 Kb8 7. >>>> Kb1 h4 8. Qd3 <HT> >>>> 14 9.01 -0.20 1. ... Qc7 2. a3 Bd6 3. Nb3 h5 4. Be3 >>>> h4 5. gxh4 Ng6 6. h5 Nf4 7. Qf3 O-O-O >>>> 8. Bxa7 Nxg2+ 9. Qxg2 Nxh5 >>>> 14 18.38 -0.18 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Bd6 4. Ne4 >>>> Nxe4 5. Qxe4 O-O-O 6. b4 f5 <HT> >>>> 14-> 19.48 -0.18 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Bd6 4. Ne4 >>>> Nxe4 5. Qxe4 O-O-O 6. b4 f5 <HT> >>>> 15 26.03 -0.19 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Bd6 4. Ne4 >>>> Nxe4 5. Qxe4 Ng6 6. Qe3 h4 7. Be4 f5 >>>> 8. Bf3 hxg3 9. Qxe6+ Qe7 >>>> 15-> 49.01 -0.19 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Bd6 4. Ne4 >>>> Nxe4 5. Qxe4 Ng6 6. Qe3 h4 7. Be4 f5 >>>> 8. Bf3 hxg3 9. Qxe6+ Qe7 >>>> 16 1:44 -0.13 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Be7 4. Ne4 >>>> O-O-O 5. Be3 Nd5 6. Bxa7 b6 7. f4 Nd7 >>>> 8. Bxb6 Qxb6 9. c3 >>>> 16-> 3:01 -0.13 1. ... h5 2. Qe2 Qc7 3. a3 Be7 4. Ne4 >>>> O-O-O 5. Be3 Nd5 6. Bxa7 b6 7. f4 Nd7 >>>> 8. Bxb6 Qxb6 9. c3 >>>> 17 3:14 1/48 1. ... h5 >>>> >>>> >>>>Crafty 17.7 @ 700k nps found it in 85:25. >>> >>>The question is if Qc7 is worse than h5. >>> >>>Crafty had h5 in the main line when it wanted to play Qc7 and >>>the difference at depth 14 is only 0.02 pawns. >>> >>>Uri >> >>As I said, several masters, including Kasparov himself said h5 was the better >>move here. I am going by what they said. I don't think I am in a position to >>disagree with them. > >h5 is better than castling and I suspect that they compared between h5 and >castling that is a typical computer move. > >I need an explanation why Qc7 with the plan to play h5 later is inferior >relative to h5. > >Uri From Seirawan: Now, what Deep Blue says to itself is, "Hey, this move seems to, c3, the moves d3-d4 are coming, pushing me pieces away. I've God to do something about my knight on e5. Let me figure out what I can do." And it says to itself, "Huh. How about that. White has a weak square f4. Of course, white does not have a weak square f4. And Deep Blue says that's the square I'm going off. This is what I'm going to do, folks. I'm going to play h7-h5. And I'm going to play h5-h4." So let's give Garry Kasparov a move. Let's give Garry Kasparov the move castles. New variation. Now we play the move h5-h4. After Garry plays g3-g4, bypassing the h-pawn, then Deep Blue says, "Aren't I brilliant? I now control the f4 square. I'll play Ne5-g6 and when Garry does something silly like c2-c3, well, then my bishop will drop back to d6 and I'll have played perfectly, I've got control of the f4 square." So this is the way Deep Blue is trying to solve its problems.
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.