Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 15:36:35 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 11:03:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 10:17:12, Joachim Rang wrote: > >>well another shootout between DF7 and Crafty 18.14: >> >> >> >>Crafty 18.14 - Deep Fritz 7 >>for bob, 120'/20+120'/20+60' JOACHIM (1), 26.11.2002 >> >>W=16.4 ply; 183kN/s; 163.882 TBAs >>B=15.9 ply; 747kN/s; 187.425 TBAs >> 1.Qxe7+ Ka2 2.Qe6+ 0.00/17 6:19 Qb3 -0.25/16 7:31 3.Qa6+ 0.00/17 6:19 >>Kb2 (Kb1) -0.16/17 7:27 4.Qf6 0.00/17 6:19 Kb1 (Ka2) -0.25/16 2:57 5.h4 >> 0.00/19 6:21 c2 -0.59/16 2:41 6.Qf5 -0.01/18 12:37 Kb2 -0.44/15 2:34 >>7.Qe5+ -0.01/18 35:10 Qc3 -0.09/14 4:52 8.Qb5+ 0.00/16 21:38 Ka3 >>-0.28/15 5:02 9.Qa6+ -0.50/16 2:06 Kb3 -0.53/15 5:06 10.Qb6+ -0.43/16 >>2:06 Kc4 -0.53/14 2:59 11.Qe6+ -0.43/17 2:06 Kb5 (Kc5) -0.81/15 4:35 >>12.Qd5+ -0.41/16 2:06 Ka4 (Kb6) -0.69/15 2:54 13.Qa8+ (Qd7+) -0.28/15 >>8:24 13...Kb3 -1.16/15 5:28 14.Qb7+ -0.22/15 1:12 Qb4 -1.97/16 13:41 >>15.Qc7 -0.69/16 1:11 Qd4 -4.84/14 3:41 16.Kg2 -4.87/13 1:14 Qd5+ >>-5.44/14 4:00 17.Kh2 -5.39/16 1:11 Kb2 -5.34/15 1:46 18.Qb6+ -5.77/15 >>1:11 Kc1 -5.94/15 1:38 19.f4 -5.79/12 1:11 Kd2 (Kd1) -7.03/16 4:39 >>20.Qf2+ -5.94/13 35 Kc3 -7.09/16 3:49 21.Qe3+ -7.26/15 6:01 Qd3 >>-7.22/15 1:57 22.Qc5+ -7.56/14 36:10 Kd2 -8.44/15 4:11 23.Qa5+ -8.44/14 >> 4:21 Ke2 -8.50/15 4:25 0-1 >> >> >> >>it seems to me, that the win, although forced, takes many moves. But we know >>that queenendgames can take very many moves for the winning side. > > >That is all well and good, but it is not answering "the question". > >A different question: Can a carpenter drive in 100 nails without having one >go "sproing" and shooting off somewhere? You get the best carpenter you know >and try it and at nail 45, "sproing". You do this a few times and each time >you get a "sproing". And you conclude it can't be done. That's not a proof >of any sort. For example, several KQPKQ and KNNKP ending positions are probably >impossible for a compute to win. This kind of testing methodology would suggest >those are all draws. And it would be wrong. > >Playing a game out proves exactly nothing about the ultimate outcome from the >root position. > >This can be proven as a win by either a human or a program, all they need to do >is give analysis with the best black move for each possible white move, to show >that _all_ white move at _all_ positions in the tree lead to a loss. Anything >else is a "vincent proof". Bob please stop continuing your badgering of Vincent Thanks Wayne
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.