Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 03:26:40 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 06:04:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 21, 2003 at 04:59:46, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 21, 2003 at 01:00:37, Paul Byrne wrote: >> >>I tried a different, even faster position, looks like it's a big zugzwang! >> >>[D]8/8/pppppppp/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8/8 w - - >>1 0 1 1 1.a4 >>2 0 1 17 1.a4 a5 >>3 0 1 58 1.a4 b5 2.axb5 >>4 0 1 235 1.a4 b5 2.c4 bxa4 >>5 0 1 574 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.axb5 >>6 0 1 1609 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 bxa4 >>7 0 2 3481 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 e5 4.axb5 >>8 0 2 8625 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 e5 4.axb5 cxb5 >>9 0 4 18592 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 e5 4.b4 d5 5.axb5 >>10 0 5 43157 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 c5 4.f4 a5 5.e4 bxa4 >>11 0 10 98442 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.h4 c5 4.b4 d5 5.e4 dxe4 6.dxe4 >>12 0 33 391079 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.f4 c5 4.h4 a5 5.d4 f5 6.b4 bxa4 >>13 0 73 851266 1.a4 b5 2.c4 h5 3.f4 c5 4.e4 b4 5.d4 e5 6.g4 a5 7.dxe5 >>14 -100 251 2929213 1.a4 a5 2.e4 e5 3.d4 d5 4.b4 c5 5.f4 f5 6.c4 h5 7.g4 >>15 100 1499 17292060 1.a4 h5 2.h4 b5 3.e4 d5 4.b4 g5 5.g4 f5 6.f4 >>16 -100 1976 22723174 1.a4 a5 2.h4 h5 3.c4 f5 4.b4 b5 5.d4 g5 6.f4 d5 7.g4 c5 >>8.e4 >>17 0 2655 30378376 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.f4 e5 4.c4 f5 5.d4 b5 6.g4 g5 7.b4 >>18 -299982 5394 62233614 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 c5 4.f4 e5 5.e4 f5 6.d4 >>19 -299982 18708 244756665 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.d4 d5 5.f4 g5 6.e4 f5 7.g4 >>20 -299982 32140 429458855 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 5.f4 c5 6.g4 b5 7.d4 >>g5 8.b4 f5 9.axb5 >>21 -299982 45633 614250543 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 5.f4 c5 6.d4 f5 7.g4 >>22 -299982 59388 802228766 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 5.f4 c5 6.d4 f5 7.g4 >>23 -299982 72952 987563406 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 5.f4 c5 6.d4 f5 7.g4 >>24 -299982 86610 1173582223 1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 5.f4 c5 6.d4 f5 7.g4 >> >>I'm not fond of those eval swings in the middle, but my qsearch had to suffer >>some simplification, and this being a pure bean counter eval might produce such >>instability. >> >>Perhaps you can confirm it? > >I can confirm that it is wrong without programs >The pv says >1.a4 h5 2.h4 a5 3.c4 e5 4.e4 d5 > >White is clearly winning by exd5 so without expressing opinion if white is >losing this line is not the reason that white is losing. > >I think that you should not use hash tables unless you hash all the board. >They destroy everything and I cannot trust your result because there may be hash >collision(when you try to solve a game I want result without doubt and the >situation is different than playing so if I cannot be sure that there is no hash >collision your solution is wrong. > >Evaluation of unstoppable passed pawns may help you to prune stupid moves like >d5. > >Uri I think he may have broken his qsearch. I wouldn't expect TT's would cause significant problems here. It's true their use would not lead to an iron clad result, but nobody can guarantee their program is bug free anyways. Bugs can be incredibly subtle.
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.