Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:04:59 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 18:36:35, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >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 Perhaps when he stops "badgering" me I might consider that. Tit for tat, and all that...
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.