Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:16:13 02/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 05:33:36, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. :) > > >I believe that this is not really a tactical shoot, this is an evaluation based >sacrifice. Some engines will find this very fast, others won't find it at all. I agree I saw no claim that it is a tactical sacrifice. My program see +0.16 for black at depth 13 after Nxc3 bxc3 It probably can find Nxc3 from the root position after enough time but it was not important enough for me to check. After Nxc3+ bxc3 the score is positive since depth 10. > >Mine still likes white better after Nxc3 bxc3 and a few minutes of search. >Of course it has no king safety at the moment, but aside from that it looks like >white is not completely dead :) > >9 71 97 634373 2...Nd5 4.Kb2 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc3 6.Qf1 Nxd1+ 7.Qxd1 Qf6 8.Qb1 >10 64 207 1450310 2...Nd5 4.Rc1 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc3+ 6.Rxc3 Rxc3 7.Kb2 Qc7 >8.gxf5 exf5 >11 59 447 3347308 2...Nd5 4.Rc1 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc3+ 6.Rxc3 Rxc3 7.Kb2 Qc7 >8.gxf5 exf5 9.Rg2 d5 >12 78 913 7020065 2...Nd5 4.Rc1 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc3+ 6.Rxc3 Rxc3 7.Kb2 Qc7 8.e4 >fxe4 9.Nxe4 Bxe4 10.Qxe4 >13 76 7849 60175453 2...Nd5 4.Rc1 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc3+ 6.Rxc3 Rxc3 7.Kb2 Qc7 >8.Ne5 d5 > > >-S. It seems that frenzee has a bug I see 2...Nd5 4.Rc1 where is move 3?
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.