Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:49:23 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 23:33:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:
I have never seen the exact DTS table. Only that you
committed major fraud in ICCA by making up numbers yourself.
You have my email.
>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 0.01 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.