Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:11:49 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 09:52:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 04:51:38, José Carlos wrote: > >> This position is easy, but interesting: >> >>[D]r2qk2r/pp3ppp/2pbpn2/4Nb2/PnBP2P1/2N1P3/1P3P1P/R1BQ1RK1 b kq g3 0 1 >> >> Black plays Ng4 with big advantage. >> Anubis (complex qsearch) finds it in iteration 8, while Averno (simple >>qsearch) needs 12. Studying what the program was searching in qsearch in this >>position has been very interesting for me. >> How does your program here? >> >> José C. > > >You are asking the _wrong_ question. You should ask "How _long_ does it take >your program to find this?" Not "How deep does your program have to search >to find this?" > >The two questions are _not_ the same thing. 12 plies to one program might >take a year on another program. > >For Crafty, on my dual 2.8, this takes 12 plies and 42 seconds to find: > > 12 20.02 0.08 1. ... Bc2 2. Qe2 O-O 3. f4 Bxe5 4. > fxe5 Nfd5 5. Bd2 Nb6 6. Ne4 Qe7 7. > Bxb4 Qxb4 8. Qxc2 Nxc4 > 12 42.20 -0.24 1. ... Nxg4 2. Nxg4 Qh4 3. h3 h5 4. > Ne5 Bxh3 5. Qf3 Bxe5 6. dxe5 Bxf1 7. > Bxf1 <HT> > 12-> 42.20 -0.24 1. ... Nxg4 2. Nxg4 Qh4 3. h3 h5 4. > Ne5 Bxh3 5. Qf3 Bxe5 6. dxe5 Bxf1 7. > Bxf1 <HT> (s=2) > 13 1:05 ++ 1. ... Nxg4!! Yes, I know it. I wanted to show this position where different qsearch approaches make a big difference in plies-to-solution. Of course, time is what finally matters in regard to playing strength. But I'm experimenting with qsearch now, trying to make a conclusion about which is better for me, a complex qsearch or a simple qsearch and more pruning in regular search. Also, this position might help understand other programs, for example I could try to guess if some comercial program does checks in qsearch or not. José C.
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.