Author: Harald Faber
Date: 06:57:56 02/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 06:52:16, William Penn wrote: >On February 04, 2004 at 05:53:53, Mike Hood wrote: > >> >>[D] 6k1/2B5/6p1/2K2p2/6n1/8/4n3/2q5 w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Shredder 8: >> >>69.Kd6 Ne5 70.Bb8 Qc6+ 71.Ke7 Qd7+ 72.Kf6 Ng4+ 73.Kg5 Qe7+ 74.Kxg6 Qf6+ 75.Kh5 >>Qh6# >> -+ (-#7) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 169kN, tb=1566 >>69.Kb6 Ne5 70.Bd6 Qc6+ 71.Ka7 Nc4 72.Kb8 Nxd6 73.Ka7 Qb7# >> -+ (-#148) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 175kN, tb=1572 > >It's the new math they teach in school now. Didn't you know that... >7 - 2 = 148 >:o) >I wonder if you get the same result if you clear the hash tables first? And >perhaps try a different size hash? I'm starting to suspect, but can't prove, >that Shredder 8 has a bug related to handling of hash tables. >WP Certainly not related to hash. This is a known behaviour - call it bug if you want to - due to some (dirty imo) bugfixing/workaround which was necessary after the 3-fold repitition bug in the Graz WCH last year.
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.