Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Comet Analysis under SCID

Author: Steve Coladonato

Date: 04:07:00 06/12/02

Go up one level in this thread


On June 11, 2002 at 20:43:53, Robert Henry Durrett wrote:

>On June 11, 2002 at 12:34:01, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>
>>On June 11, 2002 at 12:12:09, Steve Coladonato wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the analysis for a position arising out of a Milner-Barry line of the
>>>French Defence.  I opened up two desktops on Linux and in one ran SCID using
>>>crafty for analysis and in the other used Comet for the analysis.  I hope I have
>>>the correct syntax to get the diagram to display.  It took Comet a lot longer
>>>than Crafty to get to depth 11 and the line it is displaying is not good for
>>>black.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>[D] r3kbnr/1p1b1ppp/p3p3/3pP3/3q4/2NB4/PP3PPP/R1BQ1R1K b kq - 0 11
>>>
>>> Crafty-18.13
>>> Depth:       11      Nodes: 38180437 (122495 n/s)
>>> Score:    -0.90      Time:    311.69 seconds
>>> 11. ... Be7 12. f4 Nh6 13. Qe2 O-O 14. Be3 Qb4 15. Rac1 d4 16. a3 Qc5
>>>
>>> 3 -1.27  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qf6 (0.04)
>>> 4 -0.87  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qd4 13. Qe2 (0.05)
>>> 4 -0.87  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qd4 13. Qe2 (0.16)
>>> 5 -1.01  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qd6 13. Bg5 Nf6 (0.18)
>>> 5 -1.01  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qd6 13. Bg5 Nf6 (0.37)
>>> 6 -0.85  11. ... Qxe5 12. Re1 Qd6 13. Bd2 Nf6 14. Rc1 (0.46)
>>> 6 -1.02  11. ... Bb4 12. Qe2 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qxc3 14. Bd2 Qc5 (1.36)
>>> 6 -1.02  11. ... Bb4 12. Qe2 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qxc3 14. Bd2 Qc5 (1.56)
>>> 7 -0.88  11. ... Bb4 12. f4 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qxc3 14. Rb1 b5 15. Be3 (3.77)
>>> 7 -0.97  11. ... Nh6 12. f4 Rc8 13. Ne2 Qc5 14. Bd2 Nf5 (6.74)
>>> 7 -0.97  11. ... Nh6 12. f4 Rc8 13. Ne2 Qc5 14. Bd2 Nf5 (7.44)
>>> 8 -0.92  11. ... Nh6 12. Bxh6 gxh6 13. f4 Rc8 14. Qc2 Ba3 15. bxa3 Rxc3 (10.86)
>>> 8 -1.02  11. ... Bb4 12. Rb1 Qxe5 13. Re1 Qd6 14. Qg4 Qc5 15. Qe2 (21.43)
>>> 8 -1.02  11. ... Bb4 12. Rb1 Qxe5 13. Re1 Qd6 14. Qg4 Qc5 15. Qe2 (23.35)
>>> 9 -0.71  11. ... Bb4 12. Ne2 Qxe5 13. Qb3 Qd6 14. a3 Bc5 15. Qxb7 Bc6 (45.39)
>>> 9 -0.92  11. ... Nh6 12. Be3 Qxe5 13. Re1 Qd6 14. Rc1 d4 15. Ne4 Qe5 (62.49)
>>> 9 -0.93  11. ... Rc8 12. f4 Nh6 13. Ne2 Qc5 14. b4 Qc7 15. Qd2 Nf5 (71.48)
>>> 9 -0.93  11. ... Rc8 12. f4 Nh6 13. Ne2 Qc5 14. b4 Qc7 15. Qd2 Nf5 (73.37)
>>> 10 -0.78  11. ... Rc8 12. f4 Nh6 13. Ne2 Qc5 14. b4 Qxb4 15. Rb1 Qa5 16. Rxb7
>>>Qxa2 (83.49)
>>> 10 -0.84  11. ... Be7 12. f4 Nh6 13. Re1 Qf2 14. Re2 Qh4 15. g3 Qg4 16. Rd2
>>>Qxd1+ 17. Rxd1 (145.50)
>>> 10 -0.84  11. ... Be7 12. f4 Nh6 13. Re1 Qf2 14. Re2 Qh4 15. g3 Qg4 16. Rd2
>>>Qxd1+ 17. Rxd1 (178.45)
>>> 11 -0.90  11. ... Be7 12. f4 Nh6 13. Qe2 O-O 14. Be3 Qb4 15. Rac1 d4 16. a3 Qc5
>>>(244.93)
>>> 11 -0.90  11. ... Be7 12. f4 Nh6 13. Qe2 O-O 14. Be3 Qb4 15. Rac1 d4 16. a3 Qc5
>>>(311.69)
>>>
>>>COMET-B46
>>>Depth:       11      Nodes: 44858323 (1274 n/s)
>>
>>The n/s looks peculiar. So, it took 10 hrs to reach this depth ?
>>
>>The B.46 CB natives reaches depth 11 in a few minutes on Athlon/700.
>>The evaluation looks quite different too.
>>
>>I guess that there is something wrong with the comet-xb.
>>
>>Sorry, it seems i was too optimistic to try this release without testing.
>>
>>Uli
>>
>>
>>>Score:    -1.32      Time:  35187.00 seconds
>>>d4e5!  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1  g8f6  d3h7
>>>
>>> 6 -0.91  f8b4?  f2f4  b4c3  b2c3  d4c3  a1b1  b7b6  b1b6  c3e5 (137.00)
>>> 6 -0.84  f8b4  f2f4  b4c3  b2c3  d4c3  a1b1  b7b5  c1b2 (287.00)
>>> 6 -0.84  f8b4  f2f4  b4c3  b2c3  d4c3  a1b1  b7b5  c1b2 (325.00)
>>> 7 -0.84  f8b4  f2f4  b4c3  b2c3  d4c3 (437.00)
>>> 7 -0.97  d4e5!  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  c3a4  g8e7  d3a6 (487.00)
>>> 7 -1.13  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  c1g5  f8e7 (525.00)
>>> 7 -1.13  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  c1g5  f8e7 (625.00)
>>> 8 -0.99  d4e5?  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d6h2  h1h2  f8d6  f2f4  g8f6 (650.00)
>>> 8 -0.95  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1 (1512.00)
>>> 8 -0.95  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1 (1725.00)
>>> 9 -1.08  d4e5!  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  e1e6  f7e6  c3d5 (2387.00)
>>> 9 -1.35  d4e5!  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  e1e6  f7e6  c3d5 (3587.00)
>>> 9 -1.35  d4e5?  f1e1  e5d6  d1f3  g8f6  c1f4  d6b4  f4e5  f8e7  a1c1 (3725.00)
>>> 9 -1.35  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1f3  g8f6  c1f4  d6b4  f4e5  f8e7  a1c1 (4212.00)
>>> 10 -1.21  d4e5?  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6 (4575.00)
>>> 10 -1.19  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1  g8f6  c1g5  h7h6  g5h4 (9975.00)
>>> 10 -1.19  d4e5  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1  g8f6  c1g5  h7h6  g5h4 (11112.00)
>>> 11 -1.32  d4e5!  f1e1  e5d6  d1b3  d7c6  h1g1  g8f6  d3h7 (35187.00)
>
>This illustrates one of the problems with chess engines.  d4e5 would be "really
>asking for it" in human-human games, assuming that the person playing White was
>well versed in this opening.  Chess engines "know no fear."  They "go where wise
>men fear to trod."  A person who used their chess engine as a tutor in opening
>theory would be making a huge mistake!
>
>Can be generalized to gambits in general.
>
>Bob D.



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.