Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:22:34 01/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2004 at 14:05:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 20, 2004 at 20:06:43, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On January 20, 2004 at 14:56:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>Particularly big sacrifices can take a while for engines to see, they fail high >>>>10 times faster if you just execute the move so nullmove and other pruning >>>>devices gets a better root window to work with. >>> >>>I rarely use that approach, as it doesn't prove the sacrifice was the best >>>move at the root position if you force the game a few moves down... >> >>This is from a game I played today. >>You can sit and wait for Crafty to "prove" g5!, good luck :) > >I know it is a problem. But I have seen many "proofs" of such moves that >omit a really oddball reply by the opponent, only proving that the variation >seen by the poster is correct beyond that point, but the the original move. That's why you analyze the position after the critical move has been made, that will make it much easier for the engine to resolve the right score. In the position below there is not much tactics going on, and the attack is just starting to build. It's in such an early stage that I wouldn't really expect any engine to find g5, but if you don't play g5 white can equalize with f4. So this would be what I wanted to analyze, not Ne7 or some other boring shuffle line. -S. >>[D]1r3r1k/pppb2pp/2n2q2/4pp2/8/2PP4/PPQNBPPP/R4R1K b - - 0 1 >> >>-S.
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.