Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:33:06 09/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 21:13:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On September 01, 2002 at 23:42:35, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>I beat crafty at home in tests with 9-1 on average.
>
>Sometimes 10-0.
Sure you do Vincent. That convinces me. All the games you play against
me on ICC are accidental losses caused by whatever excuse you find
convenient???
>
>I don't know what you talk about Bob. Just show up at
>a world champ instead of bragging about crafty now and then
>scoring a point at the icc. Sure we all know you beat tiger
>1.0 at icc too.
>
>You say i dissappear. of course i sometimes quit the stupid
>CCC forum.
>
>I made no errors.
I claimed Cray Blitz was linear in NPS improvement vs number of processors.
You did some bad math to show it wasn't. I pointed out the error, posted the
_exact_ table from DTS to show that you couldn't even copy the data down
right, much less prove anything.
Crafty's NPS is linear with processors. Cray Blitz's NPS was linear also...
>
>the o-o move from DB was not from the book. it didn't do a 17 to 18
>ply search either. but 11-12 ply. they optimistically estimate it
>at 12.2 ply themselves, though their outputs suggest 11 ply.
You were correct about c4 being the move caused by the comm failure. I
certainly corrected that in my followup to you... When are you going to
correct your poor NPS math about the DTS article???
>
>In 1999 you also claimed they searched 11 - 12 ply but with *unimaginable*
>extensions. Then for 3 years you claimed something else, that they
>searched 17-18 ply despite they wrote it in several papers and it
>is theoretic impossible to do 17-18 ply fullwidth without hashtables.
_I_ never claimed _anything_. I simply posted results that they had already
published or sent to me via email. "claiming" is one thing. "repeating"
is something else. Get a dictionary...
>
>You claim crafty is 1.0 + 0.7*n, but that's only true for at most 2
>processors and when comparing with a SMP version of crafty.
First, the SMP vs non-SMP speed difference is about .1%. I will be happy
to post some long searches to prove this if you want. The non-SMP search
simply has one less compare and one branch that the SMP version. Two
instructions out of several thousand. That is _not_ a "huge difference".
_another_ error. Several have produced 1.7X with duals. Slator. Myself.
Others. I have produced 3.1 with 4, which _still_ fits that formula
you say doesn't work. I gave you the log file. (more next post as
netscape is about to crash)...
>
>If i compile crafty single cpu and compare it with a dual crafty,
>your speedup is about 1.4, simple as that.
>
>Perhaps Nalimov has an explanation for it from compiler viewpoint
>(having to do with a single thread versus 2 threads), i don't know
>it from compiler viewpoint with regard to multithreading,
>but i see a huge speed diff.
>
>If everyone at home can compile crafty and see that if they optimize
>it single cpu they can get it very fast versus dual it is only 1.4
>times faster for them, then that's really a big problem.
>
>In fact you can already see the speed diffs from the simple tests
>that it isn't true that it can ever get 1.7 speedup, because
>it already has effort to get 1.7 times the number of nodes a second,
>which you wisely hide by not printing out the number of nodes a
>second it gets at each ply.
>
>Even when slate at his slow chipset is running crafty single cpu
>he gets nearly a million nodes a second. Dual it gets 1.6MLN nodes
>a second.
>
>The really optimized single cpu machines get however way over a million
>nodes a second. That's at say 1.73Ghz. K7 even.
>
>P3 is so outdated we cannot count it anymore. A single cpu K7 is outsearching
>crafty with crafty at internet. We have seen it so many times at the
>internet.
>
>The only 'luck' you have at your quad is that Corbitt or whoever compiles
>your crafty version doesn't know a thing from compiling (i'm not claiming
>i know more, let's be clear here) and produces a version which at
>any K7 or P4 is hell slower than a default msvc compile here.
>
>Let's not talk about special k7 extensions or special P4 extensions
>(at the k7 there is more to win than at P4 IMHO).
>
>If we compare those versions with 100% same compiled versions for k7
>and see its speedup then it's hell slow.
>
>Now you will complain about memory being slow on K7 but that's simply
>not true. It's about 680MB/s that chipset which is very fast.
>
>The supercomputer chipsets usually do not have more in fact and it is
>not going to change in the future either for quads, unless you
>only are going for hammer which is having other problems though.
>
>Your P3 processors are so slow (700Mhz or so?) that you don't see that
>if they would be clocked at 1.6 or 1.7 or even 2.5Ghz, that the memory
>also gets 3 times slower. Parallel or not.
>
>You HAVE to do tests with slower memory simply at duals. You can't
>claim it's 1.7 simply based upon the weakest evidence ever.
>
>But the real parallel problem is different in crafty.
>
>Crafty without asymetric king safety is having a horrible
>speedup at a dual. In fact i measured about 1.0 - 1.4 when forgetting
>the single cpu versus smp diff.
>
>This is very weird, because only that one feature is the difference
>between normal chess programs.
>
>If a normal chessprogram uses your parallellism it is giving a speedup
>of 1.0 to 1.4, whereas only one stupid feature which is doing so bad
>in computer-computer play for them (because their king safety is better,
>and play against humans is not important simply, as they do not sell
>based upon how well it plays humans at the icc), but it is of course
>great to parallellize a program because it gets like death penalty
>for some things.
>
>That means that searching in parallel will give huge cutoffs both
>sides. That improves branching factor a little, because *still* it
>isn't getting a 1.7 speedup in nodes a second. In fact i measured
>crafty to lose about 30-35% speed when running parallel versus
>single cpu.
>
>So you can according to your own theories (which say it is impossible
>to get a > 2.0 speedup, though i disagree with that) not even get
>a 1.7 speedup, because you
>would need less nodes a ply then.
>
>In fact if you accurately print out how many nodes a ply you need you
>will see that also crafty needs in many cases LESS nodes at bigger
>depths (with the asymetric feature of course), and that only because
>of it's dead slow speed when running dual, you get a 1.4 speedup
>30% loss from 2.0 = 1.4, so at very old machines where memory is
>less of a problem and you suffer less from all that slow parallel
>stuff you lose less than 30%, but say 15% and 15% loss from 2.0 = 1.7
>
>That's why you claim 1.7.
>
>Note that then directly your formula of 1 + 0.7 (n-1) for n cpu's
>is not working, because GCPs test clearly showed it had a speedup
>of 2.8 at your ideal slow hardware (slow cpu's).
>
>In the future RAM won't get that much faster, whereas cpu's will
>double in speed and so on. Obviously you still run at your quad
>xeon in 2010 to maintain a 1.7 speedup and by proof of 1 carefully
>selected position (where even a stupid beta version of diep with
>a very bad parallellism even could achieve a 1.9 speedup at 2
>processors, whereas at normal positions it got a 1.4 speedup
>at most) you show it's 1.7 at your quad xeon at 2 cpu's. Of course
>3 cpu's never get tested nor 4 nor 5 nor 6 nor 7.
>
>Because we both know that at 32 cpu's you'll never get n + 0.7 (n-1),
>even if memory is parallel fast.
>
>Of course no such machines exist, but it's very easy proof to show
>why it won't work.
>
>Each cpu copies 44KB datastructure or something to split...
>
>>On September 01, 2002 at 09:10:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On August 31, 2002 at 23:43:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>Dead wrong Bob, Again your horrible memory is the problem.
>>
>>
>>OK.. I believe you are right here. In fact, it is possible that
>>O-O was a book move. It is in my book for example, and g3 is the
>>next book move in crafty's book.
>>
>>But as far as horrible memory goes, I pointed out _several_ errors _you_
>>made and I noticed that your "horrible responses" were simply missing.
>>
>>you did some lousy math on the DTS numbers, and when I pointed out the
>>error, you disappear. You later claim Crafty gets a speedup of 1.0 on your
>>machine, on the positions used for the DTS article, and then GCP and myself
>>both got results around 3.0... no response.
>>
>>I like the way you respond to what is convenient... And how you continually
>>say that crafty's eval is bad, or its search is bad, but never address the
>>point that you can't win more than 1 of 3 games from it.
>>
>>Which is worse, a memory that does occasionally make an error, as above?
>>Or someone with an ego that makes statements they can't back up, and when
>>challenged, they run and hide until things disappear???
>>
>>I know which _I_ would rather deal with...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Comm line went down before c4, not before o-o. I have eye witness
>>>report from Frans Morsch here. He was sitting 1.5 meters away
>>>from Deep Blue there and of course being opponent he asked
>>>what happened. Comm line did *not* go away at that time. comm line
>>>was excellent.
>>>
>>>They played o-o because the thing knew shit from chess!
>>>
>>>Older versions of diep (1997) need about 8-9 ply to find g3 to be
>>>better. Current version 10 ply which in itself i already consider
>>>bad. They didn't find it at all of course.
>>
>>They did find it, as they reported. But they didn't find it after they
>>restarted...
>>
>>That happens.
>>
>>Perhaps every time you point out an error their program made, I'll take the
>>time to point out _ten_ that yours makes today? I've _personally_ seen your
>>program castle into vicious attacks. All the while thinking it is winning.
>>Programs make mistakes. Deep Thought. Deep Blue. And yours too...
>>
>>>
>>>It is the c4 move which deep blue played nearly instantly. However
>>>DIEP sees instantly that c4 loses, in fact it doesn't consider playing
>>>it even. Nevertheless we know that even with 500k nodes a second older
>>>versions of DT they only can search 8 ply, so it is logical that they
>>>do not see c4 to be losing if they play instantly a move.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, but I watched deep thought. Cray blitz searched 10 plies in 1992.
>>I don't have many logs left, but I do have our first GM win in a tournament
>>game vs Van Der Sterren... and it was doing 10 plies. And deep thought
>>was going deeper...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here what diep would play there:
>>>
>>>00:00 100 0k 0 0 5 (2) 1 (0,0) -1.130 Na3xb5 a6xb5 Bd3xb5
>>>00:00 137 0k 0 0 11 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.113 Rf1-g1
>>>00:00 115 0k 0 0 15 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.089 g2-g3
>>>00:00 100 0k 0 0 17 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.067 Qd1-h5
>>>00:00 100 0k 0 0 20 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.055 Bd3-e2
>>>00:00 100 0k 0 0 24 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.008 c2-c3
>>>00:00 322 0k 0 0 100 (2) 2 (0,3) -0.381 c2-c3 Qd8-g5
>>>++ d1-h5
>>>00:00 553 1k 0 0 216 (2) 2 (0,6) -0.081 Qd1-h5 h7-h6
>>>00:00 1217 1k 0 0 499 (2) 3 (0,41) 0.007 Qd1-h5 h7-h6 c2-c3
>>>00:00 6548 7k 0 0 3209 (2) 4 (2,80) -0.409 Qd1-h5 h7-h6 h2-h3 Nc6-d4
>>>++ c2-c3
>>>00:00 6910 7k 0 0 3801 (2) 4 (2,85) -0.375 c2-c3 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Be6-h3
>>>++ g2-g3
>>>00:00 11971 12k 0 0 7662 (2) 4 (6,99) -0.350 g2-g3 Be6-h3 Rf1-g1 Qd8-g5
>>>++ f1-g1
>>>00:00 12972 13k 0 0 9081 (2) 4 (7,107) -0.294 Rf1-g1 Qd8-g5 Bd3-f1 Nc6-d4
>>>00:00 18457 18k 0 0 15320 (2) 5 (8,169) -0.224 Rf1-g1 Qd8-g5 Bd3-f1 f7-f5 Nd5-
>>>b6
>>>++ c2-c3
>>>00:01 23652 24k 0 0 24362 (2) 5 (9,182) -0.127 c2-c3 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 f7-f5 h2-h4
>>>
>>>00:01 31402 31k 0 0 38939 (2) 6 (12,246) -0.300 c2-c3 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Be6-g4 Bd3-
>>>e2 Bg4-h3
>>>00:02 60220 60k 0 0 135495 (2) 7 (31,370) -0.287 c2-c3 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 f7-f5 h2-h
>>>4 Qg5-h6 Qd1-f3 f4xg3 f2xg3
>>>++ g2-g3
>>>00:04 74426 74k 0 0 320777 (2) 7 (34,396) -0.210 g2-g3 Nc6-e7 Nd5-b4 Be6-h3 Rf
>>>1-g1 Qd8-b6 Qd1-h5
>>>00:07 78060 78k 0 0 611993 (2) 8 (75,667) -0.401 g2-g3 Be6-g4 Bd3-e2 Bg4xe2 Qd
>>>1xe2 Nc6-d4 Qe2-d1 Qd8-g5
>>>++ c2-c3
>>>00:08 81916 82k 0 0 715949 (2) 8 (81,725) -0.310 c2-c3 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 f7-f5 h2-h
>>>4 Qg5-d8 Qd1-f3 f4xg3 f2xg3
>>>00:26 101208 101k 0 0 2651670 (2) 9 (268,1617) -1.128 c2-c3 Qd8-h4 g2-g3 f4xg3 f
>>>2xg3 Rg6xg3 Qd1-e1 Rg3-h3 Qe1-e2
>>>++ g2-g3
>>>00:48 113156 113k 0 0 5474505 (2) 9 (550,2763) -0.153 g2-g3 Be6-h3 Rf1-g1 f4xg3
>>>f2xg3 Nc6-d4 Bd3-e2 Nd4xe2 Qd1xe2
>>>01:01 117297 117k 0 0 7226727 (2) 10 (626,3357) -0.354 g2-g3 Be6-h3 Rf1-g1 Nc6-d
>>>4 Bd3-e2 Nd4xe2 Qd1xe2 f4xg3 f2xg3 Bf8-h6
>>>
>>>now if i play c4, *after* cleaning hashtables first then starting
>>>search (from blacks viewpoint is the score, so positive means good for
>>>black):
>>>
>>>00:00 100 0k 0 0 5 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.363 b5xc4 Na3xc4
>>>00:00 130 0k 0 0 13 (2) 1 (0,0) -0.026 Be6xd5 c4xd5
>>>00:00 130 0k 0 0 17 (2) 1 (0,0) 0.105 b5-b4
>>>00:00 116 0k 0 0 21 (2) 1 (0,0) 0.497 Qd8-g5
>>>00:00 609 1k 0 0 128 (2) 2 (0,1) 0.277 Qd8-g5 g2-g3
>>>00:00 3544 4k 0 0 957 (2) 3 (1,44) 0.516 Qd8-g5 Rf1-g1 b5-b4
>>>++ c6-d4
>>>00:00 6014 6k 0 0 2105 (2) 3 (1,54) 0.563 Nc6-d4 c4xb5 Qd8-g5
>>>00:00 10014 10k 0 0 4106 (2) 4 (1,91) 0.273 Nc6-d4 c4xb5 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 f4xg3 h2
>>>xg3 Nd4xb5 Bd3xb5 a6xb5 Na3xb5
>>>++ d8-g5
>>>00:00 11314 11k 0 0 6223 (2) 4 (5,100) 0.366 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Be6-h3 Rf1-g1
>>>00:00 20072 20k 0 0 13248 (2) 5 (9,158) 0.500 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Nc6-d4 c4xb5 Be6-g4
>>>
>>>00:01 34894 35k 0 0 54086 (2) 6 (19,238) 0.425 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Nc6-e7 Nd5xe7 Bf8x
>>>e7 c4xb5
>>>00:02 52132 52k 0 0 147535 (2) 7 (24,364) 0.487 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Nc6-e7 h2-h4 Qg5-
>>>h6 Qd1-f3 Ne7xd5 e4xd5 f4xg3 f2xg3
>>>00:08 67758 68k 0 0 571207 (2) 8 (72,733) 0.402 Qd8-g5 g2-g3 Be6-g4 Bd3-e2 Bg4
>>>xe2 Qd1xe2 Nc6-d4 Qe2-d3 b5xc4 Na3xc4 f4xg3 h2xg3
>>>++ d8-h4
>>>00:18 93952 94k 0 0 1742828 (2) 8 (131,966) 1.670 Qd8-h4 g2-g3 Qh4-h3 Qd1-f3 R
>>>g6-h6 Qf3-g2 Qh3xg2 Kh1xg2 Be6-h3 Kg2-h1 Bh3xf1 Ra1xf1
>>>00:24 103166 103k 0 0 2553361 (2) 9 (134,1070) 1.670 Qd8-h4 g2-g3 Qh4-h3 Qd1-f3
>>>Rg6-h6 Qf3-g2 Qh3xg2 Kh1xg2 Be6-h3 Kg2-h1 Bh3xf1 Ra1xf1
>>>
>>>>On August 31, 2002 at 20:48:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 30, 2002 at 11:55:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 29, 2002 at 22:25:50, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The much discussed game
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Deep Blue -- Fritz
>>>>>>>8. World Computer Chess Championships (5) Chinese University HKG
>>>>>>>1995.05.29 0-1 B33w
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
>>>>>>>9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 f4
>>>>>
>>>>>of course communication problem or not. doesn't take away
>>>>>that castling is the losing move here. g3 is much much better.
>>>>>another blunder caused by communication problems is not relevant
>>>>>in a lost position. the castling lost the game already simply.
>>>>>
>>>>>beta DIEP needs less than a minute to get rid of o-o?? despite
>>>>>running on background:
>>>>
>>>>That was the point. If you read Hsu's post about this years ago, he
>>>>pointed out that Deep Thought had already found g3. But then the comm
>>>>line went down before it moved, and they had to reconnect and re-start.
>>>>It moved too quickly after losing so much time, and played right into
>>>>the attack...
>>>>
>>>>It was unfortunate luck. But it also happened to me more than once. At
>>>>the ACM event in 1978, were we played a horrible move that let Belle play
>>>>a stunning sacrifice Rxh2. Against belle again in 1981 with the Qxb6
>>>>loser...
>>>>
>>>>Thinking you are short on time can cause lots of problems..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>00:00 262 0k 0 0 21 (2) 1 (0,0) 0.939 Na3xb5 a6xb5 Bd3xb5
>>>>>00:00 454 0k 0 0 50 (2) 1 (0,0) 0.998 O-O-O
>>>>>00:00 800 1k 0 0 120 (2) 2 (0,5) -0.498 O-O-O Nc6-d4
>>>>>++ a3-b5
>>>>>00:00 878 1k 0 0 202 (2) 2 (0,7) 0.939 Na3xb5 a6xb5 Bd3xb5
>>>>>00:00 3471 3k 0 0 972 (2) 3 (0,55) 0.939 Na3xb5 a6xb5 Bd3xb5
>>>>>00:00 10582 11k 0 0 3598 (2) 4 (1,106) -1.500 Na3xb5 a6xb5 O-O Nc6-d4
>>>>>++ e1-c1
>>>>>00:00 13372 13k 0 0 5884 (2) 4 (3,116) 0.343 O-O-O Be6xd5 e4xd5 Nc6-b4 Bd3xh7
>>>>>Nb4xa2 Kc1-d2
>>>>>++ e1-g1
>>>>>00:00 14973 15k 0 0 8385 (2) 4 (4,130) 0.498 O-O Be6xd5 e4xd5 Nc6-b4
>>>>>00:00 24761 25k 0 0 16095 (2) 5 (6,193) 0.948 O-O Be6xd5 e4xd5 Nc6-b4 Bd3-e4
>>>>>00:00 43098 43k 0 0 40944 (2) 6 (12,303) 0.817 O-O Rh8-g8 Qh5xh7 Rg8-g7 Qh7-h5
>>>>> Nc6-d4
>>>>>00:03 71058 71k 0 0 230940 (2) 7 (39,551) 0.755 O-O h7-h6 c2-c3 Rh8-g8 Na3xb5
>>>>>a6xb5 Bd3xb5
>>>>>00:09 90278 90k 0 0 817017 (2) 8 (76,990) 0.142 O-O h7-h6 h2-h3 Be6xd5 e4xd5 N
>>>>>c6-b4 Bd3-e4 Rh8-g8
>>>>>00:25 115008 115k 0 0 2946515 (2) 9 (148,1659) 0.206 O-O h7-h6 h2-h3 Rh8-g8 c2-c
>>>>>3 Rg8-g5 Qh5-f3 Be6xd5 e4xd5
>>>>>00:52 126908 127k 0 0 6649989 (2) 10 (325,3074) 0.275 O-O h7-h6 c2-c3 Rh8-g8 h2-
>>>>>h3 Be6xd5 e4xd5 Nc6-e7 Bd3-e4 Rg8-g5 Qh5-e2 f7-f5
>>>>>++ g2-g3
>>>>>01:25 135712 136k 0 0 11550480 (2) 10 (445,3720) 0.317 g2-g3 h7-h6 g3xf4 Rh8-g8
>>>>>Bd3-e2 e5xf4 O-O-O Nc6-e5 Nd5xf4 Be6xa2 b2-b3
>>>>>02:17 137275 137k 0 0 18937131 (2) 11 (741,5635) 0.511 g2-g3 h7-h6 c2-c3 Rh8-g8
>>>>>Qh5-e2 Be6-g4 f2-f3 Bg4-e6 O-O-O Be6xd5 e4xd5
>>>>>
>>>>>>>13.O-O?? Rg8 14.Kh1 Rg6 15.Qd1 Rc8
>>>>>>>{
>>>>>>>[D] 2rqkb2/5p1p/p1npb1r1/1p1Np3/4Pp2/N2B4/PPP2PPP/R2Q1R1K w - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Although the game may already be lost with the infamous 13. O-O? , I also find
>>>>>>>16. c4 ? to be a curiosity - is there any program that plays 16. c4 which allows
>>>>>>>16. ...Qh4!.
>>>>>>>}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>16.c4 Qh4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Qd2 f3 19.Rg1 Rh6 20.Qxh6 Qxh6 21.cxb5 Bxd5 22.exd5 Nb4
>>>>>>>23.Bf5 Rc5 24.bxa6 Nxa6 25.Nc2 Qd2 26.Ne1 Rxd5 27.Nxf3 Qxf2 28.Be4 Ra5 29.Rg2
>>>>>>>Qe3 30.Re1 Qh6 31.Bc6+ Kd8 32.a3 f5 33.Rc2 Rc5 34.Rxc5 Nxc5 35.Rf1 Be7 36.a4 f4
>>>>>>>37.gxf4 Qxf4 38.Rg1 Nxa4 39.b4 Qxb4 0-1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Crafty 17.16 SE analysis after 16. c4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>White(1): 2rqkb2/5p1p/p1npb1r1/1p1Np3/2P1Pp2/N2B4/PP3PPP/R2Q1R1K b - c3
>>>>>>>Black(1): go
>>>>>>> clearing hash tables
>>>>>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 100:00 (100:00)
>>>>>>> nss depth time score variation (1)
>>>>>>> 1-> 0.00 -0.20 1. ... Qg5 2. Qf3 Bxd5 3. exd5
>>>>>>> 2 0.00 -0.20 1. ... Qg5 2. Qf3 Bxd5 3. exd5
>>>>>>> 2-> 0.01 -0.20 1. ... Qg5 2. Qf3 Bxd5 3. exd5
>>>>>>> 3 0.04 0.01 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 b4 3. Nc2 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> cxd5
>>>>>>> 3-> 0.06 0.01 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 b4 3. Nc2 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> cxd5
>>>>>>> 4 0.06 0.01 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 b4 3. Nc2 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> cxd5
>>>>>>> 4-> 0.09 0.01 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 b4 3. Nc2 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> cxd5
>>>>>>> 5 0.17 -0.13 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 Rh6 3. g3 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> exd5 bxc4 5. Nxc4
>>>>>>> 5-> 0.21 -0.13 1. ... Qg5 2. Rg1 Rh6 3. g3 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> exd5 bxc4 5. Nxc4
>>>>>>> 6 0.67 -0.14 1. ... Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 3. fxg3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Be2 Bh3 5. Rf2 bxc4 6. Nxc4
>>>>>>> 6-> 0.76 -0.14 1. ... Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 3. fxg3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Be2 Bh3 5. Rf2 bxc4 6. Nxc4
>>>>>>> 7 1.39 -0.05 1. ... Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 3. fxg3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Be2 Bxe2 5. Qxe2 Nd4
>>>>>>> 7-> 1.57 -0.05 1. ... Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 3. fxg3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Be2 Bxe2 5. Qxe2 Nd4
>>>>>>> 8 2.70 -0.14 1. ... Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 3. fxg3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Be2 Bh3 5. Rf2 bxc4 6. Nxc4
>>>>>>> 8 6.79 ++ 1. ... Qh4!!
>>>>>>> 8 11.89 1.55 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> 8-> 11.89 1.55 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> 9 15.00 1.54 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1 b4
>>>>>>> 9-> 15.51 1.54 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1 b4
>>>>>>> 10 21.87 1.49 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1 fxg3 8. hxg3
>>>>>>> 10-> 24.57 1.49 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 7. Rxf1 fxg3 8. hxg3
>>>>>>> 11 43.46 1.61 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qh5 5. f3 Bh3 6. Qd2 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> fxg3 8. cxb5 axb5 9. Nxb5 gxh2 10.
>>>>>>> Qxh2
>>>>>>> 11-> 47.00 1.61 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qh5 5. f3 Bh3 6. Qd2 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> fxg3 8. cxb5 axb5 9. Nxb5 gxh2 10.
>>>>>>> Qxh2
>>>>>>> 12 1:32 1.89 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qh5 5. f3 Bh3 6. Qe2 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> Rxg3 8. cxb5
>>>>>>> (2) 12-> 2:28 1.89 1. ... Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Qg2 Qh5 5. f3 Bh3 6. Qe2 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> Rxg3 8. cxb5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>==========================================================================
>>>>>>> Crafty SE 17.16 analysis after 15. ...Rc8 16.f3 or 16. g3 seem to offer
>>>>>>>stronger resistance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[D] 2rqkb2/5p1p/p1npb1r1/1p1Np3/4Pp2/N2B4/PPP2PPP/R2Q1R1K w - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>White(1): go
>>>>>>> clearing hash tables
>>>>>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 100:00 (100:00)
>>>>>>> nss depth time score variation (1)
>>>>>>> 2 0.00 -1.32 1. Kg1 Bh3 2. g3 Bxf1 3. Bxf1 fxg3
>>>>>>> 4. hxg3
>>>>>>> 2 0.00 ++ 1. Be2!!
>>>>>>> 2 0.00 0.19 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Bf3 Bxd5 3. Qxd5
>>>>>>> 2-> 0.02 0.19 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Bf3 Bxd5 3. Qxd5
>>>>>>> 3 0.02 0.08 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Bf3 Bg7
>>>>>>> 3 0.03 0.11 1. Qh5 b4 2. Nc4 Bxd5 3. exd5
>>>>>>> (2) 3-> 0.05 0.15 1. Re1 Qg5 2. Qf3 Bg4
>>>>>>> 4 0.06 0.04 1. Re1 Qg5 2. Bf1 Bg4 3. Qd3
>>>>>>> 4 0.08 0.09 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Rg1 Nd4 3. Bh5
>>>>>>> (2) 4-> 0.10 0.09 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Rg1 Nd4 3. Bh5
>>>>>>> 5 0.11 0.02 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Rg1 Bxd5 3. Qxd5 Bg7
>>>>>>> (4) 5-> 0.24 0.02 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Rg1 Bxd5 3. Qxd5 Bg7
>>>>>>> (3) 6 0.30 -0.19 1. Be2 Qg5 2. Bf3 Nd4 3. Re1 Bxd5 4.
>>>>>>> exd5
>>>>>>> (2) 6 0.49 -0.12 1. c4 Qg5 2. Rg1 Qh4 3. Rf1 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> h3 Bxd5 5. exd5
>>>>>>> 6-> 0.78 -0.12 1. c4 Qg5 2. Rg1 Qh4 3. Rf1 Rh6 4.
>>>>>>> h3 Bxd5 5. exd5
>>>>>>> 7 0.97 -0.07 1. c4 Qg5 2. Rg1 Qh4 3. Rf1 b4 4. g3
>>>>>>> fxg3 5. fxg3
>>>>>>> (3) 7-> 1.67 -0.07 1. c4 Qg5 2. Rg1 Qh4 3. Rf1 b4 4. g3
>>>>>>> fxg3 5. fxg3
>>>>>>> 8 4.41 -- 1. c4
>>>>>>> (2) 8 5.27 -0.69 1. c4 Qh4 2. cxb5 Rh6 3. Nf6+ Kd8 4.
>>>>>>> h3 f3 5. bxc6 fxg2+ 6. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 7.
>>>>>>> Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 8 9.19 -0.30 1. Qd2 Qh4 2. f3 Bg7 3. Kg1 Kf8 4.
>>>>>>> Rae1 Kg8 5. Be2
>>>>>>> 8 11.31 -0.21 1. Re1 Qh4 2. Kg1 Nd4 3. c3 Qh3 4.
>>>>>>> g3 Bxd5 5. exd5
>>>>>>> (3) 8-> 12.94 -0.21 1. Re1 Qh4 2. Kg1 Nd4 3. c3 Qh3 4.
>>>>>>> g3 Bxd5 5. exd5
>>>>>>> 9 13.92 -- 1. Re1
>>>>>>> (2) 9 16.77 -1.24 1. Re1 Qh4 2. Kg1 Nd4 3. Be2 Bh3 4.
>>>>>>> Bf1 f3 5. Ne3 Qxe4
>>>>>>> 9 17.13 ++ 1. Qd2!!
>>>>>>> 9 37.08 -0.35 1. g3 fxg3 2. fxg3 Nd4 3. c3 Bg4 4.
>>>>>>> Qd2 Bf3+ 5. Kg1 Bh6 6. Qf2
>>>>>>> 9 47.50 -0.31 1. f3 Qh4 2. Qe1 Qg5 3. Qf2 Be7 4.
>>>>>>> Rae1 Nd4 5. Kg1 Bh3
>>>>>>> (2) 9-> 50.02 -0.31 1. f3 Qh4 2. Qe1 Qg5 3. Qf2 Be7 4.
>>>>>>> Rae1 Nd4 5. Kg1 Bh3
>>>>>>> 10 1:08 -0.26 1. f3 Qg5 2. Qd2 Rh6 3. Kg1 Qh4 4.
>>>>>>> h3 Rg6 5. Nb6 Rb8 6. Nd5 Bxd5 7. exd5
>>>>>>> 10 1:15 2/36* 1. g3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>===========================================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Force analysis on 16. c4?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>White(1): search c4
>>>>>>>White(1): go
>>>>>>> time surplus 0.00 time limit 100:00 (100:00)
>>>>>>> nss depth time score variation (1)
>>>>>>> 5 0.00 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 5-> 0.00 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 6 0.00 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 6-> 0.00 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 7 0.02 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 7-> 0.02 -0.32 1. c4 Qg5 2. g3 fxg3 <HT>
>>>>>>> 8 0.95 -- 1. c4
>>>>>>> 8 1.05 -0.69 1. c4 Qh4 2. cxb5 Rh6 3. Nf6+ Kd8 4.
>>>>>>> h3 f3 5. bxc6 fxg2+ 6. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 7.
>>>>>>> Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 8-> 1.05 -0.69 1. c4 Qh4 2. cxb5 Rh6 3. Nf6+ Kd8 4.
>>>>>>> h3 f3 5. bxc6 fxg2+ 6. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 7.
>>>>>>> Kg1 Bxf1
>>>>>>> 9 3.03 -- 1. c4
>>>>>>> 9 10.80 -1.55 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> 9-> 10.80 -1.55 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> 10 14.49 -1.54 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> b4
>>>>>>> 10-> 14.49 -1.54 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> b4
>>>>>>> 11 23.28 -1.49 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> fxg3 8. hxg3
>>>>>>> 11-> 23.28 -1.49 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Rh6 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qxg2+ 5. Kxg2 Bh3+ 6. Kg1 Bxf1 7. Rxf1
>>>>>>> fxg3 8. hxg3
>>>>>>> 12 39.97 -- 1. c4
>>>>>>> 12 2:46 -2.00 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qh5 5. Nb6 Bf3 6. Nxc8 fxg3 7. fxg3
>>>>>>> Bxg2+ 8. Kxg2
>>>>>>> 12-> 2:46 -2.00 1. c4 Qh4 2. g3 Qh3 3. Qf3 Bg4 4. Qg2
>>>>>>> Qh5 5. Nb6 Bf3 6. Nxc8 fxg3 7. fxg3
>>>>>>> Bxg2+ 8. Kxg2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>===========================================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>so after only 2 minutes on a micro search, maybe 1M nps, Crafty SE 17.16 sees
>>>>>>>16. c4 is not looking so well ...the DB prototype. seeing 3-5M nps did not see
>>>>>>>this coming?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem, as is well-known, was that they had a communication crash during
>>>>>>this game. And once they noticed and got everything set back up, Deep Thought
>>>>>>was left with little time on the clock to do the search.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've mentioned more than a couple of times this happened to me in ACM events...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It comes with the territory of accessing a machine remotely, on a brand new
>>>>>>network (was just set up in Hong Kong that week and had significant but unknown
>>>>>>problems).
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.