Author: Mike Hood
Date: 12:47:43 12/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2002 at 15:11:20, Mike Hood wrote: >On December 03, 2002 at 14:20:12, Ingo Bauer wrote: > >>On December 03, 2002 at 13:06:05, Art Basham wrote: >> >>>Here white played Rxh5 and went on to win...! >>>My computer is too slow to find this one...it is about 14 or 15 ply deep... >>>maybe more...:-) >>> >>>[D]r1r2k2/1q1n1p2/3PpPp1/4P2p/pbpN3R/2N3K1/1P2Q2P/3R4 w - - >> >>Engine: Ruffian 1.0.1 >>by Perola Valfridsson >> 8.00 0:01 -0.24++ 1.Qe3 (1.295.057) 1166.7 >> 8.01 0:01 -0.19 1.Qe3 Ke8 2.Nf3 Bxc3 3.Qxc3 Qb5 4.Rc1 Rab8 5.Rc2 >>(1.592.440) 1170.9 >> 9.01 0:02 -0.45 1.Qe3 Ke8 2.Nf3 a3 3.Qh6 Nc5 4.Qh8+ Kd7 5.Qg7 Bxc3 6.bxc3 >>Ne4+ 7.Kh3 (3.014.698) 1155.0 >> 9.31 0:06 +0.10 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Qxh5 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh4 Ke8 5.Nxe6 Rc6 >>6.Ng7+ Kd8 7.Qe5 (7.358.068) 1186.7 >> 10.01 0:07 +0.45++ 1.Rxh5 (8.553.078) 1181.3 >> 10.01 0:08 +1.02 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Qxh5 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh3 Ke8 5.Ncb5 Ra6 >>6.Nxe6 Qb8 7.Qh8+ Kd7 (9.919.104) 1183.6 >> 11.01 0:14 +0.78 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Qxh5 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh3 Ke8 5.Ncb5 Ra6 >>6.Nxe6 Qb8 7.Nxd6+ Rxd6 8.Ng7+ Kd8 9.Rxd6+ Qxd6 10.Qxf7 (17.823.987) 1227.5 >> 12.01 0:23 +1.13++ 1.Rxh5 (28.199.931) 1213.4 >> 12.01 1:18 +2.76 1.Rxh5 Kg8 2.Qe3 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh3 Bf8 5.Rg1 Rd8 >>6.Rh4 Ra6 7.Rg2 Bd6 (96.517.488) 1236.1 >> 13.01 2:01 +2.64 1.Rxh5 Kg8 2.Qe3 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh3 Bf8 5.Rb5 Qd7 >>6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Re5 Rab8 8.Qd4 (148.749.014) 1228.7 >> 14.01 4:54 +2.69 1.Rxh5 Kg8 2.Kh3 Nxe5 3.Rg1 Rc5 4.Qd2 Ng4 5.Rxc5 Bxc5 >>6.Rxg4 Bxd6 7.Qh6 Bf8 8.Qd2 a3 (354.614.886) 1203.7 >> 15.01 19:49 +3.00 1.Rxh5 Kg8 2.Rh4 Nxf6 3.exf6 Bxd6+ 4.Kh3 Ra5 5.Ne4 Bf8 >>6.Nxe6 fxe6 7.Nd6 Qb3+ 8.Kg4 c3 9.Nxc8 cxb2 10.Rb1 (1.393.441.899) 1171.2 >>best move: Rh4xh5 time: 25:43.219 min n/s: 1.186.775 CPU 99.0% nodes: >>1.831.455.771 >> >>Bye Ingo > >Fritz 7 doesn't rate his winning chances as highly as Ruffian, but still chooses >RxP after 6 seconds on my Pentium 3 733 MHz. > >Analysis by Fritz 7: > >1.Qe2-e3 a4-a3 2.Nc3-b5 a3xb2 3.Qe3-h6+ Kf8-e8 4.Qh6-h8+ Nd7-f8 5.Nb5-c7+ Rc8xc7 > ³ (-0.37) Depth: 6/26 00:00:00 82kN >1.Qe2-e3 Bb4xc3 2.b2xc3 Qb7-d5 3.Rh4-e4 Kf8-g8 4.Rd1-d2 Rc8-b8 > ³ (-0.31) Depth: 7/28 00:00:00 142kN >1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nc3-b5 Bb4-c5 3.Nb5-c7+ Rc8xc7 4.d6xc7 Qb7xb2 > ³ (-0.31) Depth: 8/26 00:00:00 316kN >1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Rd1-a1 Bb4xc3 3.Qe3xc3 Nd7-c5 4.Qc3-c2 Qb7-d5 5.Nd4-f3 Nc5-d3 > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 9/29 00:00:03 989kN >1.Rh4xh5! > ³ (-0.41) Depth: 9/30 00:00:06 2092kN >1.Rh4xh5! > = (-0.25) Depth: 9/30 00:00:07 2358kN >1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Nd7xf6 3.e5xf6 Bb4xd6+ 4.Kg3-h3 Kf8-e8 5.Nd4xe6 Rc8-c6 >6.Rd1-g1 Bd6-f8 > = (0.00) Depth: 9/30 00:00:09 2902kN >1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Nd7xf6 3.e5xf6 Bb4xd6+ 4.Kg3-h3 Kf8-e8 5.Nd4xe6 Ra8-a6 >6.Rd1-g1 Rc8-b8 7.Rg1-g8+ Ke8-d7 8.Rg8xb8 > = (0.00) Depth: 10/32 00:00:12 4081kN >1.Rh4xh5! > ² (0.28) Depth: 11/36 00:00:26 9504kN >1.Rh4xh5! > ² (0.56) Depth: 11/36 00:00:34 12556kN >1.Rh4xh5! > ± (1.13) Depth: 11/37 00:00:45 16947kN >1.Rh4xh5 Nd7xf6 2.e5xf6 Bb4xd6+ 3.Kg3-h3 Kf8-g8 4.Qe2-e3 Bd6-f8 5.Rh5-b5 Qb7-d7 >6.Kh3-g2 Bf8-c5 7.Qe3-e5 > +- (1.88) Depth: 11/37 00:01:34 35420kN >1.Rh4xh5 Nd7xf6 2.e5xf6 Bb4xd6+ 3.Kg3-h3 Kf8-g8 4.Rd1-g1 Rc8-e8 5.Qe2-f2 Bd6-f8 >6.Qf2-h4 Bf8-g7 7.Rh5-b5 > +- (1.66) Depth: 12/38 00:02:28 55181kN At the risk of being boring, another two analyses... Chess Tiger 14 finds RxP after 140 seconds, but Gambit Tiger 2 only needs 19 seconds. Is this an example of the different strategies of the two programs? Analysis by Chess Tiger 14.0: 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 Ra8-a5 3.Rh4-f4 a4-a3 4.b2xa3 Ra5xa3 ³ (-0.50) Depth: 6 00:00:00 97kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 Rc8-c5 3.Kg3-f2 a4-a3 4.b2xa3 Ra8xa3 = (-0.22) Depth: 7 00:00:00 166kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 a3-a2 = (-0.20) Depth: 8 00:00:01 339kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 a3-a2 4.Qh6-h8+ Nd7-f8 5.Rd1-a1 Bb4-c5 6.Rh4xc4 Qb7xb2 ³ (-0.36) Depth: 9 00:00:03 720kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-f8 4.Qh6-h8 Qb7-d7 5.Nc3-a2 Bb4-c5 ³ (-0.30) Depth: 10 00:00:10 2241kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-f8 4.Qh6-h8 Rc8-d8 5.Rh4-d4 Rd8-d7 6.Nf3-d2 = (0.04) Depth: 11 00:00:24 5379kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-f8 = (0.04) Depth: 12 00:01:08 15573kN 1.Rh4xh5 ± (0.94) Depth: 12 00:02:20 32409kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Kf8-e8 3.Nd4xe6 Nd7xf6 4.e5xf6 Qb7-b8 ± (1.02) Depth: 12 00:02:43 37272kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Kf8-e8 3.Nd4xe6 Nd7xf6 4.e5xf6 Qb7-b8 5.Ne6-c7+ Rc8xc7 6.Qh5-h8+ Ke8-d7 7.Qh8-h3+ Kd7-e8 8.Rd1-e1+ Ke8-d8 9.d6xc7+ ± (1.18) Depth: 13 00:03:28 47963kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Kf8-e8 3.Nd4xe6 Nd7xf6 4.e5xf6 Qb7-b8 5.Nc3-b5 Ke8-d7 6.Qh5xf7+ Kd7-c6 7.Ne6-c7 Ra8-a5 8.Qf7-d5+ Kc6-b6 9.Kg3-g2 +- (1.74) Depth: 14 00:06:33 92619kN Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Qe3-e4 Qb7xe4 3.Rh4xe4 a4-a3 4.Nd4-c2 ³ (-0.68) Depth: 6 00:00:00 100kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-c5 4.Kg3-g2 a3xb2 ³ (-0.32) Depth: 7 00:00:00 178kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-c5 4.Kg3-g2 a3xb2 5.Nc3-e2 ³ (-0.42) Depth: 8 00:00:01 308kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-f8 4.Rh4-d4 a3-a2 5.Rd1-a1 Bb4-c5 6.Rd4xc4 Qb7xb2 µ (-0.84) Depth: 9 00:00:04 901kN 1.Qe2-e3 Kf8-e8 2.Nd4-f3 a4-a3 3.Qe3-h6 Nd7-f8 4.Qh6-h8 Ke8-d7 5.Qh8-g7 Bb4xc3 6.b2xc3 µ (-0.86) Depth: 10 00:00:15 3509kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Nd7xf6 3.Qh5-h8+ Nf6-g8 4.Nd4xe6+ f7xe6 5.Rd1-f1+ Qb7-f7 6.Rf1xf7+ Kf8xf7 7.Qh8-h5+ Kf7-g7 8.Qh5-g4+ Kg7-h7 ³ (-0.36) Depth: 10 00:00:19 4594kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Nd7xf6 3.Qh5-h8+ Nf6-g8 4.Nd4xe6+ f7xe6 5.Rd1-f1+ Qb7-f7 6.Rf1xf7+ Kf8xf7 7.Qh8-h5+ Kf7-g7 8.Qh5-g4+ Kg7-h7 ³ (-0.36) Depth: 11 00:00:24 5736kN 1.Rh4xh5 ² (0.54) Depth: 12 00:01:11 16961kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Kf8-e8 3.Nd4xe6 Nd7xf6 4.e5xf6 Qb7-b8 +- (1.71) Depth: 12 00:01:38 23609kN 1.Rh4xh5 g6xh5 2.Qe2xh5 Kf8-e8 3.Nd4xe6 Nd7xf6 4.e5xf6 Qb7-b8 5.Nc3-b5 Bb4-a5 6.Ne6-c7+ Rc8xc7 7.d6xc7 Ba5xc7+ 8.Nb5xc7+ Qb8xc7+ +- (1.98) Depth: 13 00:02:22 34413kN
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.