Author: Tim Foden
Date: 06:08:30 10/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2003 at 08:41:41, macaroni wrote:
>Yes, fairly similar to what my comp thinks. I would be surprised if any
>computers could get this.
GLC 3.33 (devel version) likes Nxe5 eventually (after over an hour), but not by
very much. :)
Cheers, Tim.
Analysis (AXP 2.1GHz, 24MB Hash):
>anal
Game stage: Opening
Current eval: -0.919
Ply Time Score Nodes Principal variation
4 0.011 -0.117 5066 h3 {++} Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd4 3. Ng5
4 0.011 +0.142 7765 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd4 3. Ng5
4 0.011 +0.142 9783 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd4 3. Ng5
5 0.021 +0.163 18967 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd4 3. Bh6+ Bg7 4. c3
5 0.031 +0.163 26732 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd4 3. Bh6+ Bg7 4. c3
6 0.071 +0.110 57054 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Ng5
6 0.091 +0.110 76640 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Ng5
7 0.181 +0.142 158767 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Kg7 3. Ng5 f6 4. Qxc6 Qd5 5. Qxd5
Nxd5
7 0.261 +0.142 235623 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Kg7 3. Ng5 f6 4. Qxc6 Qd5 5. Qxd5
Nxd5
8 0.611 -0.131 527994 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Nc3 f6 5. Bg5
8 0.862 -0.131 764267 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Nc3 f6 5. Bg5
9 1.252 -0.164 1109964 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Bh6+ Kg8 5. Nc3
f6 {ht}
9 2.254 -0.164 2088683 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Qd5 3. c4 Qd4 4. Bh6+ Kg8 5. Nc3
f6 {ht}
10 4.197 -0.092 3932680 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Ng5 Qd5 4. Qg3 Rc8 5. Qg4
f5 6. Qe2
10 5.949 -0.092 5718608 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Ng5 Qd5 4. Qg3 Rc8 5. Qg4
f5 6. Qe2
11 9.264 -0.116 8823422 h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. Ng5 Qd6 5. g4 Qd5
6. Qxd5 cxd5 7. Bf4
11 13.730 -0.116 13291k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. Ng5 Qd6 5. g4 Qd5
6. Qxd5 cxd5 7. Bf4
12 24.716 -0.159 21060k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. Ng5 Qd6 5. Ne4
Qe5 6. Bg5 Ne6 7. Bd2
12 39.297 -0.159 35051k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. Ng5 Qd6 5. Ne4
Qe5 6. Bg5 Ne6 7. Bd2
13 1:07.40 -0.211 60239k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. g4 Qd7 5. gxf5
Qxf5 6. Qf4 Qxf4 7. Bxf4 Ne6 8. Be3 Kf7
13 2:20.83 -0.211 122505k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. Rb1 f5 4. g4 Qd7 5. gxf5
Qxf5 6. Qf4 Qxf4 7. Bxf4 Ne6 8. Be3 Kf7
14 3:49.41 -0.200 201329k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. a4 h6 4. a5 Ne6 {ht}
14 7:29.82 -0.200 383799k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. a4 h6 4. a5 Ne6 {ht}
15 10:15.0 -0.272 527811k h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. a4 h6 4. a5 Ne6 5. c3 bxa5
6. Nd2 Kg8 7. Qxc6 Kh7 8. Ne4 Qxd3 9. Nxc5 Nxc5
10. Qxc5
15 21:50.0 -0.272 1109m h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. a4 h6 4. a5 Ne6 5. c3 bxa5
6. Nd2 Kg8 7. Qxc6 Kh7 8. Ne4 Qxd3 9. Nxc5 Nxc5
10. Qxc5
16 30:55.3 -0.212 1581m h3 Bxf3 2. Qxf3 Bg7 3. a4 a5 4. Ra3 Ne6 5. Ng5
Nxg5 6. Bxg5 f6 7. Rb3 Qd5 8. Qxd5 cxd5 9. Bd2
Ra6 10. Rb5
16 1:07:37 -0.065 3393m Nxe5 Bxd1 2. Nxc6 Qe8 3. Bh6+ Kg8 4. Nf6+ exf6 5.
Ne7+ Qxe7 6. Rxe7 Nd5 7. Rd7 Nb4 8. Rxd1 Nxc2 9.
Re7 f5 10. b3 Nd4 11. Rde1 a5
16 1:11:37 -0.065 3599m Nxe5 Bxd1 2. Nxc6 Qe8 3. Bh6+ Kg8 4. Nf6+ exf6 5.
Ne7+ Qxe7 6. Rxe7 Nd5 7. Rd7 Nb4 8. Rxd1 Nxc2 9.
Re7 f5 10. b3 Nd4 11. Rde1 a5
17 1:12:55 +0.132 3684m Nxe5 Bxd1 2. Nxc6 Qe8 3. Bh6+ Kg8 4. Nf6+ exf6 5.
Ne7+ Qxe7 6. Rxe7 Nd5 7. Rd7 Nb4 8. Rxd1 Nxc2 9.
Rc1 Nd4 10. Re1 Nf5 11. Bf4 Kg7 12. Re6
17 1:32:22 +0.132 4699m Nxe5 Bxd1 2. Nxc6 Qe8 3. Bh6+ Kg8 4. Nf6+ exf6 5.
Ne7+ Qxe7 6. Rxe7 Nd5 7. Rd7 Nb4 8. Rxd1 Nxc2 9.
Rc1 Nd4 10. Re1 Nf5 11. Bf4 Kg7 12. Re6
18 1:35:09 +0.100 4883m Nxe5 Bxd1 2. Nxc6 Qe8 3. Bh6+ Kg8 4. Nf6+ exf6 5.
Ne7+ Qxe7 6. Rxe7 Nd5 7. Rd7 Nb4 8. Rxd1 Nxc2 9.
a3 Nd4 10. Re1 Nf5 11. Rxa7 Rd8 12. Be3 Rxd3
Analyse>exit
local: t=2:00:42 nps=869407.4 n=6296034284 (18.8% / 81.2%)
total: t=2:01:48 nps=875311.1 n=6396764192
stats: fh=92.7%/3.41%/0.948% draws=701955
trans: probes=1182478845 hits=84208103 (7.12%) draft=69230684 (5.85%)
tcuts: exact=1781 (0.00%) upper=35373290 (2.99%) lower=31385465 (2.65%)
tstor: exact=2440 (0.00%) upper=312122733 (67.75%) lower=148603318 (32.25%)
ehash: probes=0 hits=0 (-1.$%)
ext: check=168669736 recap=18102061 ppush=1029415 1rep=9960521 thrt=166027
q-moves: gen=196535120 tested=2107276907 made/un=677358994 max-dep=16
>The eval() required to do it would have to be super
>strong. And if I force to the end of the line (to Rxe7, winning back the queen),
>even crafty takes a fair ammount of time to see white is in fact better. It's a
>tricky position, and I guess shows that maybe we can always have an
>edge......maybe......
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.