Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:26:26 04/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2002 at 05:38:11, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On April 13, 2002 at 20:25:11, martin fierz wrote: > >>On April 13, 2002 at 18:39:48, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>http://www.kasparovchess.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=20902&p_docLang=EN >>> >>>w.b.r. >>>Otello >> >>interesting article - i've snipped a part: >>_____________________________ >>Chess Genius – Ilya Smirin >>ICS u 2 12 09/04/94, 1994 >>B60: Sicilian: Richter Rauzer >> >>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Qb6 7.Bxf6 More standard >>is: 7. Nb3 e6 8. Qd2 a6 9. 0-0-0 gxf6 8.Nd5?? This is the critical moment. White >>can still settle for the standard 8.Nb3 but can’t resist what seems as a hung >>rook – elementary childish combo Qxd4 9.Nc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 11.Qe2 Rook taken >>in return for a knight and pawn – only to realize the no exit sign for the >>knight at a8 f5 Smirin simplifies for a confident win 12.Qxe4 fxe4 13.Rd1 Be6 >>14.b4 Nxb4? Smirin can avoid giving slight counter play by the simpler 14…Bg7 >>but is winning anyway of course >>______________________________ >> >>question: how long does it take today's programs not to play 8.Nd5?? ? >>and do they really see it because of software advances, as shay says, or do they >>see deep enough to see the knight is stuck? (i.e. does Nd5 appear as PV in the >>beginning? how long?) >> >>aloha >> martin > > > >[D]r1b1kb1r/pp2pp1p/1qnp1p2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fritz 7.0.0.7: > > >1.Bb5! > = (0.06) Depth: 7/22 00:00:00 78kN >1.Bb5 Kd8 2.Nb3 Bg7 3.Bc4 Ne5 4.Nd5 > = (0.13) Depth: 7/22 00:00:00 101kN >1.Nb3! > = (0.16) Depth: 7/22 00:00:00 135kN >1.Nb3 Bg7 2.Nd5 Qd8 3.Bd3 f5 > = (0.19) Depth: 7/22 00:00:00 144kN >1.Nb3 Bg7 2.Nd5 Qd8 3.Bd3 Kf8 4.Kf1 Rg8 > = (0.06) Depth: 8/20 00:00:01 198kN >1.Nd5! > = (0.09) Depth: 8/23 00:00:01 279kN >1.Nd5 Qxd4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Nxa8 Qxb2 4.Bd3 Bg4 > = (0.13) Depth: 8/23 00:00:01 298kN >1.Nd5 Qxd4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 4.Qe2 Qxe2+ 5.Bxe2 Nd4 6.Bd3 Bg7 > = (0.13) Depth: 9/26 00:00:03 438kN >1.Nd5 Qxd4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 4.Qe2 Bf5 5.c3 Ne5 6.Qxe4 Bxe4 7.Rd1 > = (0.13) Depth: 10/31 00:00:07 1035kN >1.Nb3! > = (0.16) Depth: 10/33 00:00:08 1367kN >1.Nb3 Bg7 2.Bd3 Kf8 3.Kf1 Nb4 4.Qh5 Nxd3 5.cxd3 Qa6 6.Rd1 Kg8 > ² (0.28) Depth: 11/34 00:00:23 4129kN >1.Nb3 Bg7 2.Bd3 Kf8 3.Kf1 Ne5 4.Nd5 Qd8 5.Kg1 > = (0.16) Depth: 12/36 00:00:45 8248kN >1.Bb5! > = (0.19) Depth: 12/36 00:01:11 13335kN >1.Bb5 Kd8 2.Nb3 Be6 3.Kf1 Kc8 4.a4 Qd8 5.Nd5 a6 6.Bc4 > = (0.22) Depth: 13/37 00:03:35 40000kN > > >w.b.r. >Otello thanks for posting this. i think this shows that fritz 7 is not a bit smarter than chess genius was - it's just much faster on today's hardware. i think shay was claiming that this kind of move would not be played any more because programs are smarter, not because they search deeper. 1994, hmm, i think i had a 16MHz computer back then - that would be about 100 times slower than today, so 5 seconds would be 500 seconds -> fritz 7 on 1994 hardware would make the same mistake... aloha martin
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.