Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:02:34 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2002 at 00:56:28, Dann Corbit wrote: You did better than I did. I flitzed around with deja for a bit, but couldn't pick the right keywords to get to the post where I quoted the results from Hsu. I am almost certain it was posted. I did notice below that my memory was wrong in that we were normalized to 8 hours on a 486, or one hour on a P6.200... not 8 hours as I had remembered. Which makes 14 plies more reasonable. I let it run for > 14 plies on my laptop with a score of (still) 0.00... There are some good positions beyond the Nf6 check move as the line is very deep and forcing. >On July 24, 2002 at 00:17:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 23, 2002 at 23:45:30, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On July 23, 2002 at 21:12:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 23, 2002 at 19:41:40, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 23, 2002 at 18:32:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>A few years ago, Komputer Korner had a "correspondence kup" match with Crafty, >>>>>>chessmaster and some other programs, playing a correspondence tournament. In >>>>>>that match, Crafty found a wild sacrifice to play against Chessmaster, I think >>>>>>it was Nf6. After searching for 24 hours or whatever the time limit was, Crafty >>>>>>saw a draw score. And it saw a draw score for the next couple of moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>Right after Crafty played that move, Hsu sent me an email saying "brilliant >>>>>>move". I told him Crafty only saw a draw. He said "let it keep searching... >>>>>>DB Jr saw +2.5 very quickly." Sure enough, a few moves later Crafty realized >>>>>>it was not just drawing, it was winning easily. >>>>>> >>>>>>I will try to find the game. If anybody has it, perhaps _that_ position will >>>>>>be a good one to see how long it takes today's programs to find the move and >>>>>>find it is winning, compared to DB1 back in 1996... >>>>>> >>>>>>I will see what I can find... >>>>>> >>>>>>I think the event was called "the komputer kup korrespondence tournament" or >>>>>>something similar... >>>>> >>>>>The fastest, and highest score I get in 10 minutes is from, BIG SURPRISE, DJ7. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Junior 7 - W,S >>>>>r1b1r1k1/1q3ppp/ppn5/2bNp3/P4B2/5Q1P/BP3PP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Analysis by Deep Junior 7: >>>>> >>>>>1.Bh2 e4 2.Qf4 >>>>> ³ (-0.41) Depth: 3 00:00:00 >>>>>1.Bd2 e4 2.Qg3 Kh8 3.Qf4 >>>>> ³ (-0.30) Depth: 6 00:00:00 5kN >>>>>1.Bd2 e4 2.Qg3 Kh8 3.Qf4 >>>>> ³ (-0.30) Depth: 6 00:00:00 5kN >>>>>1.Bd2 e4 2.Qg3 Kh8 3.Qf4 >>>>> ³ (-0.30) Depth: 6 00:00:00 5kN >>>>>1.Bd2 e4 2.Qg3 Kh8 3.Qf4 >>>>> ³ (-0.30) Depth: 6 00:00:00 5kN >>>>>1.Bg5 Nd4 2.Qe4 Qc6 3.Rac1 >>>>> ³ (-0.27) Depth: 6 00:00:00 19kN >>>>>1.Bg5 Be6 2.Bb1 Rac8 3.Qd3 Bxd5 >>>>> ³ (-0.45) Depth: 9 00:00:00 228kN >>>>>1.Bd2 Be6 2.Qg3 Kh8 3.Qd3 Rad8 >>>>> ³ (-0.43) Depth: 9 00:00:00 233kN >>>>>1.Bh2 Bd4 2.Rac1 e4 3.Qb3 Bf5 >>>>> ³ (-0.34) Depth: 9 00:00:00 338kN >>>>>1.Bg3 Bd4 2.Nc3 Be6 3.Bxe6 Rxe6 >>>>> = (-0.16) Depth: 9 00:00:00 501kN >>>>>1.Bh6 Re6 2.Be3 Nd4 3.Qh5 g6 4.Qh6 Nf5 5.Qg5 Nxe3 >>>>> = (-0.06) Depth: 9 00:00:00 819kN >>>>>1.Bh6 Re6 2.Be3 Nd4 3.Bxd4 Bxd4 4.Rac1 e4 5.Qe2 Bc5 6.Qc4 >>>>> = (-0.17) Depth: 12 00:00:01 2649kN >>>>>1.Nf6+! >>>>> = (0.24) Depth: 12 00:00:02 5827kN >>>>>1.Nf6+! >>>>> ² (0.54) Depth: 15 00:00:07 18172kN >>>>>1.Nf6+! gxf6 2.Bd5 Bd7 3.Bh6 Bf8 4.Qxf6 Re6 5.Bxe6 Bxe6 6.Rd3 Ne7 7.Bxf8 Rxf8 >>>>>8.Rg3+ >>>>> ² (0.56) Depth: 15 00:00:17 38549kN >>>>>1.Nf6+ gxf6 2.Bh6 Bf8 3.Bd5 Bd7 4.Qxf6 >>>>> ² (0.58) Depth: 17 00:01:28 199636kN >>>>>1.Nf6+ gxf6 2.Bh6 Bf8 3.Bd5 Bd7 4.Bxf8 Kxf8 5.Qxf6 Re6 6.Bxe6 Bxe6 7.Ra3 >>>>> ² (0.60) Depth: 18 00:04:04 560089kN >>>>>1.Nf6+ gxf6 2.Bh6 Bf8 3.Bd5 Bd7 4.Bxf8 Kxf8 5.Qxf6 Re6 6.Bxe6 Bxe6 7.Ra3 >>>>> ² (0.60) Depth: 18 00:07:13 999089kN >>>>> >>>>>(W, 23.07.2002) >>>> >>>> >>>>Unfortunately the score is not yet right. Let it compute until it sees a >>>>big material win. That will give us a good time to compare to DB Jr... >>> >>>What was DB's time? >>> >>>Miguel >> >> >>It found it almost instantly. But it didn't get +2.5 until just under the two >>minute mark. I will try to post the analysis as soon as I find the email, if I >>still have it... Crafty used to find this fairly quickly, but with the wrong >>score. If a computer feels black is winning it might find Nf6+ more quickly >>by finding the repetition first, which is what happened to me in the KKUP >>tourney... I think we reached depth=16 on this position. >> >>It is also possible that the Crafty analysis and the DB Jr analysis is still >>lying around in DejaNews as I remember posting both. I first posted Crafty's >>analysis (I was not running crafty in any of the games but I set up the >>position when KK posted "Crafty unleashes a stunning sac against ChessMaster". >>I set up the position and ran for 8 hours on my P6/200 and posted the analysis >>with the note "it sees a repetition, not a big win." I later (after hearing >>from Hsu) posted his analysis as well). > >=================================================================== >KKUP's original article: >=================================================================== > >Message 3 in thread >From: Komputer Korner (korner@netcom.ca) >Subject: Korrespondence Kup update >Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer >View this article only >Date: 1997/02/27 > > > >You can catch all the action with 6 of the games having diagrams at >http://www.gambitsoft.com/kup.htm >After I had reported/predicted Crafty's first win against MacChess in >the Korrespondence Kup in another post, meanwhile in another of Crafty's >games, this time against CM5000, Crafty was sacking a piece!!! It turns >out that after a 25 ply combination!!!!, Crafty will end up with a Rook >and 2 pawns against B+N. Each side will have another Q,R, and 3 pawns. >Did Crafty see all this when it went in for the piece sac? I have to >conclude YES, and while this may be routine for the likes of Deep Blue, >it goes a long way to explain how the level of correspondence play has >dramatically improved over the last couple of years, not that I would >suggest that correspondence players would use computers.!!!!! Anyway, >will Crafty win its 2nd game seeing that the CM5000 king is stuck in the >centre with nowhere to hide? >-- >Komputer Korner > >The inkompetent komputer. > >=================================================================== >And your follow-on: >=================================================================== >Search Result 7 >From: Robert Hyatt (hyatt@crafty.cis.uab.edu) >Subject: Re: Korrespondence Kup update >Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer >View: Complete Thread (32 articles) | Original Format >Date: 1997/02/28 > > >Chris Whittington (chrisw@demon.co.uk) wrote: > >: -- >: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft >: Robert Hyatt <hyatt@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in article >: <5f53hf$b7t@juniper.cis.uab.edu>... >: > Komputer Korner (korner@netcom.ca) wrote: >: > : You can catch all the action with 6 of the games having diagrams at >: > : http://www.gambitsoft.com/kup.htm >: > : After I had reported/predicted Crafty's first win against MacChess in >: > : the Korrespondence Kup in another post, meanwhile in another of Crafty's >: > : games, this time against CM5000, Crafty was sacking a piece!!! It turns >: > : out that after a 25 ply combination!!!!, Crafty will end up with a Rook >: > : and 2 pawns against B+N. Each side will have another Q,R, and 3 pawns. >: > : Did Crafty see all this when it went in for the piece sac? I have to >: > : conclude YES, and while this may be routine for the likes of Deep Blue, >: > : it goes a long way to explain how the level of correspondence play has >: > : dramatically improved over the last couple of years, not that I would >: > : suggest that correspondence players would use computers.!!!!! Anyway, >: > : will Crafty win its 2nd game seeing that the CM5000 king is stuck in the >: > : centre with nowhere to hide? >: > : -- >: > : Komputer Korner >: > : The inkompetent komputer. >: > >: > Dammit Whittington, you should have kept your infectious sacs out of my >: > damn program. :) >: How did that happen ? I thought when I ripped off your code verbatim to >: write my program, I'ld get some of your ideas :) >: Didn't realise that Crafty was able to reverse obtain algorithms via this >: process :) >: Clever program that Crafty. But then I found the clue in the source: >: if (crafty clone) >: dial hyatt >: transmit new ideas >: Chris Whittington > > >however you will notice that you are now on Crafty's noplay list on all >servers. :) No more of your evaluation contaminating my code.... :) > >In reality, Jason Deines and I analyzed this lastnight. It turns out that >the explanation is much less clever, and probably most programs will play >that Nf6+ sac. Crafty had played a pretty poor opening in this game, as >white, and the eval was -.6 the last time I checked. I think material was >even, but the position was not great, but also not lost. At depth=10, it >found Nf6+ led to a perpetual, which was 0.000, and played it. I believe, >at just under one hour per move in this tournay (to normalize against a 486/66) >it reached depth=13 or 14 here, but we still had an eval of draw when we checked >this out last nite... > >So, no magic tactical crush when it played that. The eval is certainly going >up, to about +1 at present, but what's going to happen is anyone's guess. I'd >rather be white myself, but there's no mate in sight. > >Therefore, "just" another case of deep/fast search finding a cheap way out of a >poor position, via a repetition. And then some luck thrown in that the >repetition turned out to not be the best option there was after the first move >was played OTB... > >I could not find Hsu's analysis.
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.