Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:51:33 07/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2002 at 12:47:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 28, 2002 at 02:48:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 27, 2002 at 23:10:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Oh that position, yeah there the Deep Blue search system >>which are focussed upon mate threats, they should >>work well there. >> >>Crafty is a bad compare here. > >How long does it take your program to get +2.5??? > >Best so far is Hiarcs at several minutes... > > > > >> >>>On July 27, 2002 at 19:57:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2002 at 09:02:13, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >>>> >>>>what the hell do you talk about? >>> >>> >>>He is talking about the Nf6+ move crafty played against chessmaster in >>>the KKUP tournament a few years ago. Crafty saw a draw score after a 13-14 >>>ply search. Hsu sent me some brief output from Deep Blue Junior that showed >>>that in under 2 minutes, it saw our score as +2.5... Several moves into the >>>game Crafty failed high and finally agreed. DB Jr saw it very quickly while >>>everyone else is taking quite a long time compared to their two minutes. Note >>>that this was DB Jr model 1, not the 1997 version... >> >>r1b1r1k1/1q3ppp/ppn5/2bNp3/P4B2/5Q1P/BP3PP1/R2R2K1 w - - 2 19 >> >>DB jr is just as good as the 97 version, considering their parallel >>speedup extrapolation. >> >>>>I can show you a bunch of bad moves DBII made against kasparov >>>>which no other computer makes, but i don't see a single good >>>>move DB makes which todays software doesn't find. >> >>>This was simply an attempt to compare their tactics to ours. At least in >> >>To that of crafty of course ,which isn't doing many checks in qsearch >>nor extending mate threats a lot. nor extending singular stuff. >> >>in this case the system as they describe how they extend works great >>of course. I bet Brutus will find this easily too. >> >>BTW did Hsu give an output? Yes he sent me output. As I mentioned, the problem is trying to find it in my email backups. That was back around 1996 or so, buried an hundreds of thousands of emails... Not easy to find. >> >>because all the things i hear is always like: "he told me". >>I want to see outputs :) >> >>it could be true he just made a few moves and then got the score. >>i remember an analysis of it a few years ago. if you give a big patzer >>score for king safety you sure can get +2.xx there, otherwise it's a >>pretty deep combi to see you win a piece on g6 using a pin of a pawn h4 h5. He got the +2.5 while searching the given position. His PV started with Nf6+ and the score was +2.5 before 120 seconds had gone by. I don't remember when it failed high, I just remember the +2.5 took under two minutes. Crafty searched to 14 plies on that move in 1996 and had 0.00. It had 0.00 for another couple of moves before it started failing hi as Hsu promised... >> >>>this position, theirs is better. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Sorry to return to this old post by Dr. Robert Hyatt, but I red it a little >>>>>late. >>>>>I know this is just one position, but I was wondering what conclusions could we >>>>>take from this test? >>>>>It seamed to me that current programs were a little slow in finding the winning >>>>>score (not the move). >>>>> >>>>>Any comments? >>>>> >>>>>Best regards, >>>>>Alvaro
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.