Author: Peter Berger
Date: 15:38:57 06/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2002 at 13:51:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >Your score is only 0.33 dude. Mine was +2.0 for c4. Maybe a bug in Diep ;-) ? > >You miss a bunch of pawns. Also crafty at 17 ply sees tactical less than >DIEP at 12 ply. > Same true for Fritz 7.0.0.8 at 18 ply? 1.La5 Kb8 2.c4 Sge3 3.Txe3 Sxe3 4.Dxe3 Te8 5.Le4 De7 6.Db6 Ta7 7.Te1 ² (0.53) Tiefe: 17/42 00:51:28 2486843kN 1.La5 Kb8 2.c4 Tc8 3.Lc2 Dd6 4.cxd5 Da3+ 5.Kb1 Txc2 6.Dxc2 Dxa5 7.Te7 Sf6 ² (0.53) Tiefe: 18/44 02:08:23 6250735kN (Not all of my hardware sucks ;) ) As you might have noticed I didn't publish real analysis with or without computer's help here at all - neither did you . I simply checked Roy's lines and think he has a point and you didn't give any other argument than Diep's +2.0 without even the mainlines or depth. Major reason for my lack of analysis is that it has already been proven that this is no good testposition at all with 20 minutes of time as most computers will choose 1. c4 or 1. Ba5 without seeing too much of a difference - also I think Roy's lines are not bad at all. I have come to the conclusion that it can be proven that 1. Ba5 is better nevertheless - but this is no computerchess , but a chess analysis contest. I won't forget it and am willing to accept the challenge - _after_ the WCCC ;). Will Diep really be able to play and scale well on this monster hardware? This should make it _the_ favourite . Good luck, Peter
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.