Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 19:02:23 02/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2004 at 17:38:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 24, 2004 at 16:31:38, Dan Andersson wrote: > >> That's not what they wrote though. The quote should be: >> 'Deep Sjeng is the only program we know of that can find this move instantly.' >>And it isn't untrue AFAIK. But here is the output from one engine that does find >>it in 42 seconds. >>Engine UCI 76 MB 933MHz CuMine: >> 5 00:00 0,32 c5xd4 Nf3xd4 Rc8xc3 Bd3c4 Qd8b8 Nd2f3 >> 6 00:01 0,41 c5xd4 Nf3xd4 Rc8xc3 Bd3c4 Qd8b8 Rh2h1 f5f4 >> 7 00:04 0,32 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 Nd5xc3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 Rc3xa3 f5xe6 d7xe6 >> 8 00:08 0,32 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 Nd5xc3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 Rc3xa3 f5xe6 d7xe6 >> 9- 00:25 0,03 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 Nd5xc3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 Rc3xa3 f5xe6 d7xe6 >> 9 00:27 0,09 c5xd4 Nf3xd4 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Qd8c7 f2f4 Ne7d5 Nd4b5 Nd5xc3+ >>Nb5xc3 Qc7xc3 Nd2c4 b6b5 >> 9+ 00:42 0,09 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 >> 9 00:43 0,35 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 e6xf5 Bd3c4+ d7d5 Bc4a6 Bb7xa6 Qe2xa6 >>10 00:47 0,57 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 Qd8c7 Rh2h1 Rc3xa3 Rh1g1 >>11 01:02 0,60 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>Kb1b2 Qd8c7 g4xf5 e6xf5 Bd3c4+ Rc3xc4 Qe2xc4+ Qc7xc4 Nd2xc4 Bb7xf3 Nc4d6 >>12 01:30 0,76 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 c5xd4 c3xd4 Nd5c3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>Kb1b2 Qd8c7 Nf3e5 b6b5 g4xf5 d7d6 Ne5d7 >>13 02:39 0,54 Nd5xc3+ b2xc3 Ne7d5 Rd1c1 c5xd4 Nf3xd4 Nd5xc3+ Rc1xc3 Rc8xc3 >>g4xf5 Rc3xa3 f5xe6 Qd8e7 Nd2b3 d7xe6 Qe2h5 h7h6 >> >>MvH Dan Andersson > >Here is one that finds it a _lot_ quicker. :) > > 7 0.37 0.05 1. ... cxd4 2. Nxd4 Qc7 3. f4 Bc6 4. > Nxc6 Qxc6 5. gxf5 Nxf5 > 7 0.45 -0.03 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 7-> 0.51 -0.03 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 8 0.59 -0.10 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 7. Ka2 > 8-> 0.98 -0.10 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 7. Ka2 > 9 1.15 -0.25 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 7. Bc4+ d5 8. Bb3 > 9-> 2.02 -0.25 1. ... Nxc3+ 2. bxc3 Nd5 3. Rc1 cxd4 > 4. cxd4 Nc3+ 5. Rxc3 Rxc3 6. gxf5 exf5 > 7. Bc4+ d5 8. Bb3 > > >That is using one cpu on my dual xeon (other processor is running some tests >right now). .45 seconds would drop to somewhere between .2 and .3 using both >cpus with SMT on. Quad opteron would drop that to under .1 seconds. :) Mine eventually also plays it but it is really such a crushing move? It's playable, that's all and more or less a matter of taste. Here is Tao's output 11.01 0:41 +0.93 1...cxd4 2.Nxd4 Rxc3 3.gxf5 Rxa3 4.fxe6 Qc7 5.Nf1 Nc3+ 6.bxc3 Qxc3 7.Bxh7+ Kxh7 8.Qc2+ Qxc2+ 9.Nxc2 (13.862.490) 337.3 11.04 0:52 +0.93++ 1...Nxc3+ (17.471.797) 333.3 11.04 0:55 +0.98 1...Nxc3+ 2.bxc3 Nd5 3.Rc1 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nc3+ 5.Rxc3 Rxc3 6.Kb2 Qc7 7.gxf5 exf5 8.Bc4+ Rxc4 9.Qxc4+ Qxc4 10.Nxc4 Bxf3 (18.636.769) 333.2 12.01 1:32 +0.95 1...Nxc3+ 2.bxc3 Nd5 3.Rc1 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nc3+ 5.Rxc3 Rxc3 6.Kb2 Qc7 7.gxf5 exf5 8.Rg2 (29.586.753) 321.1 13.01 3:08 +0.98 1...Nxc3+ 2.bxc3 Nd5 3.Rc1 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nc3+ 5.Rxc3 Rxc3 6.Kb2 Qc7 7.gxf5 exf5 8.Bc4+ Rxc4 9.Qxc4+ Qxc4 10.Nxc4 Bxf3 (61.297.194) 325.3 Just a tad better *maybe*. Bas.
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.