Author: Michael Williams
Date: 22:46:57 04/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2002 at 18:03:17, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On April 28, 2002 at 17:36:41, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>As I was following the game with Chess Tiger on identical hardware to what was >>being used by the program, I noticed that CT 14 agreed with every move played by >>Black. After the game I tried to make GT 2.0 play Kf8, but it never comes up, >>not even close. > >I tried with my AMD 1800+ and 192 MB hash: > >Ilya Smirin - Gambit Tiger >2r3k1/1p1qb1pp/1p2bp2/rP2p3/P2pP2P/3P1NP1/3Q1PB1/R1R3K1 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: > >1. -+ (-1.70): 22...Kf8 23.Rxc8+ Qxc8 24.h5 Bb3 25.h6 g6 26.Qc1 Qxc1+ 27.Rxc1 >Ra8 28.Nd2 Bxa4 29.Ra1 Kf7 30.Nc4 Bc5 >2. -+ (-1.66): 22...Raa8 23.Rxc8+ >3. -+ (-1.66): 22...Rca8 23.Qc2 Bb4 24.Bh3 Bxh3 25.Qc4+ Qf7 26.Qxb4 Qh5 27.Nd2 >Qe2 28.Nc4 R5a7 29.Nxb6 Rd8 >4. -+ (-1.66): 22...Re8 23.Qb2 Rea8 24.Qc2 Bb4 >5. -+ (-1.62): 22...Bd6 23.Qd1 >6. -+ (-1.60): 22...Kh8 23.Rxc8+ Qxc8 24.h5 Bb3 25.h6 g6 26.Qc1 Qc5 27.Nd2 Bxa4 >28.Qxc5 Bxc5 29.Nc4 Ra7 >7. -+ (-1.58): 22...Bf8 23.Qd1 >8. -+ (-1.56): 22...Rxc1+ 23.Qxc1 >9. -+ (-1.56): 22...Qe8 23.Rxc8 Qxc8 24.Qd1 Qf8 25.Nd2 Bb4 26.f4 Bc3 27.Rc1 Bxd2 >28.Qxd2 Rxa4 29.fxe5 fxe5 >10. -+ (-1.56): 22...Qd8 23.Rxc8 Qxc8 24.Qd1 >11. -+ (-1.54): 22...Bf7 23.Rxc8+ Qxc8 24.Qd1 Bb4 25.Rc1 Qa8 26.Bh3 Bc3 27.Nd2 >Rxa4 28.Nb1 Qa5 29.Nxc3 dxc3 30.Rxc3 Qxc3 31.Qxa4 >12. -+ (-1.52): 22...Ra7 23.Qd1 >13. -+ (-1.52): 22...Rc7 23.Qd1 Rc5 24.Rxc5 bxc5 25.Nd2 b6 26.Rc1 Qa7 27.Nc4 >Rxa4 28.Nxb6 Rb4 29.Nc4 Rxb5 >14. -+ (-1.50): 22...Kf7 23.Qd1 Bb4 24.Rxc8 Qxc8 25.Nh2 Bc3 26.Rc1 Qb8 27.Kf1 >Kf8 28.Kg1 Qc7 29.Bf3 > >(Irazoqui, Cadaqués 28.04.2002) > > >> Also GT switches from Bxa1 to g4 in under a minute, > >Bxa1 is being picked and dropped more than once, and it takes over 3 minutes to >discard it apparently for good: > >[D]r4k2/1p2q2p/1Q2bp1P/rP2p1p1/P2pP3/2bP2P1/3N1PBK/R1R5 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: > >1...Bxa1 2.Rxa1 Rxa4 3.Rc1 Rc8 4.Rxc8+ Bxc8 5.Nc4 Be6 6.Nd6 Ra2 > -+ (-3.38) Depth: 9 00:00:00 188kN >1...Bxa1 2.Rxa1 Rxa4 3.Rc1 Rc8 4.Rxc8+ Bxc8 5.Nb3 Ra2 6.Qc5 Qxc5 7.Nxc5 Rxf2 > -+ (-3.16) Depth: 10 00:00:00 239kN >1...Bxa1 2.Rc7 Qd8 3.Nc4 Rxa4 4.Rxh7 Qxb6 5.Nxb6 R8a7 6.Nxa4 Rxa4 7.Rxb7 > -+ (-2.90) Depth: 11 00:00:01 755kN >1...Bxa1 2.Rc7 Qd8 3.Nc4 Rxa4 4.Rxh7 Qxb6 5.Nxb6 Kg8 6.Re7 Bb3 7.Nxa8 Rxa8 8.h7+ >Kh8 9.Rxb7 > -+ (-2.36) Depth: 12 00:00:04 1779kN >1...g4 2.Rxc3 dxc3 3.Nb1 c2 4.Nc3 Bb3 5.Rc1 Kg8 6.Nd5 Bxd5 7.exd5 Rxa4 8.Rxc2 >Ra3 > -+ (-2.40) Depth: 12 00:00:12 5207kN >1...Kg8 2.Rxc3 dxc3 3.Nb1 c2 4.Nc3 Bb3 5.Bf3 R8a7 6.Bg4 Kf7 7.Rc1 Kf8 > -+ (-2.44) Depth: 12 00:00:19 8401kN >1...Kg8 2.Rxc3 > -+ (-2.44) Depth: 13 00:00:22 9642kN >1...g4 2.Rxc3 dxc3 3.Nb1 Rxa4 4.Rxa4 Rxa4 5.Nxc3 Ra3 6.Nd5 Bxd5 7.exd5 Rxd3 >8.Be4 Ra3 > -+ (-2.34) Depth: 14 00:01:44 45041kN >1...Bxa1 2.Rc7 Qd8 3.Nc4 > -+ (-2.36) Depth: 14 00:01:50 47503kN >1...g4 2.Rxc3 dxc3 3.Nb1 c2 4.Nc3 Bb3 5.Rc1 Qf7 6.Nd5 Qh5+ 7.Kg1 Qxh6 8.Qd6+ Kg7 >9.Qe7+ Kh8 10.Qxf6+ > -+ (-2.18) Depth: 15 00:03:12 82130kN >1...g4 2.Rc2 R5a7 3.Rxc3 dxc3 4.Nb1 Rxa4 5.Rxa4 Rxa4 6.Nxc3 Ra3 7.Nd5 Bxd5 >8.exd5 Rxd3 9.Be4 Rc3 > -+ (-2.24) Depth: 16 00:06:26 166192kN >1...g4 2.Rc2 R5a7 3.Rxc3 dxc3 4.Nb1 c2 5.Nc3 Bb3 6.Rc1 Qf7 7.Nd5 Qh5+ 8.Kg1 Qxh6 >9.Qd6+ Kg7 10.Qe7+ Kh8 > -+ (-2.18) Depth: 17 00:09:29 248266kN > >(Irazoqui, Cadaqués 28.04.2002) > >Enrique > > >> while CT 14 >>does not. I believe they were playing Chess Tiger 14. Any thoughts, Christophe? >> >>kp I would really enjoy seeing you all run these analyses for about 25 ply or more, would you have the patience for this??? This type of position is confusing enough for computers... as I had said earlier, in a much simpler position, it took 23/51 ply to find a move that was obvious to a 2100 player OTB... Maybe we could see this before Wednesday!
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.