Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:30:29 02/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2004 at 07:29:19, Colin Frayn wrote: Where can i find the logfile from this game showing search depths from chessbrain, so that i can compare at home with a single cpu engine? I am very interested knowing in how much of a speedup efficiency you get out of the thing. When i ran a simulation with diep distributed at the supercomputer at 460 processors, the speedup was not so good. If you don't know what i'm talking about, which is very likely, just show me the logfile please showing search depth it achieved each move. Number of nodes searching each move would be interesting too but not too relevant. Good luck in your effort finding sponsors. Best regards, Vincent >For those of you asking about the ChessBrain result from the match last Friday; > >The game went as follows; > >1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Nf3 0-0 6. Be2 e5 7. 0-0 a5 8. Re1 >exd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Bg5 Nc6 11. Nxc6 Bxc6 12. f3 Qd7 13. Qd2 Rfe8 14. Rac1 h5 >15. Kh1 Nh7 16. Bh6 Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Re5 18. Nd5 Rae8 19. Qd2 b6 20. Bd3 Qd8 21. >Rf1 Nf6 22. b3 Bb7 23. Qc2 Nd7 24. f4 R5e6 25. e5 c6 26. f5 gxf5 27. Bxf5 cxd5 >28. Bxe6 Rxe6 29. Rxf7 Kxf7 30. Qh7+ Ke8 31. Qxh5+ Ke7 32. Qg5+ Ke8 33. Qh5+ Ke7 >34. Qg7+ 1/2 - 1/2 > >THe opening was deliberate - we wanted to play the Pterodactyl on advice from >Eric Schiller, though Beo came out of book on move 8 in a position that it >didn't understand (7. ... a5 was a 4% line in the book, and was supposed to be >followed by 8. ... Na6. GM Nielsen said that he knew of a Russian GM who played >that line.) > >You wouldn't believe the technical difficulties we had early in the game, which >resulted in huge problems with time and all sorts of other dilemmas. Still, we >got it working eventually and the result is far better than we expected. > >Thanks to everyone who contributed. > >There will be full reports on the ChessBrain website asap. > >http://www.chessbrain.net > >Peter Heine Nielsen was a fantastic opponent - he was extremely interested in >the mechanics of the attempt and played like a true gentleman, not complaining >at our technical problems and offering a draw at the end when he would easily >have won on time the following move. He also played 25. e5 in a strong >position, which opened the game up nicely and gave us a great finale. He >admitted afterwards that against a human he would have played differently, and >probably won, but he wasn't too sure how well we would defend, and 25. e5 left >us with a large number of potential minefields to overcome. Fortunately we came >through unscathed. > >Cheers, >Colin
This page took 0.01 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.