Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:46:55 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. > >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 :) > I didn't claim it was anything. I was just responding to the "no program finds it quickly". Mine does. Whether it is right or wrong is another question. Crafty is not known for liking R vs two minor type exchanges when the opponent gives up the R, so there is a lot of positional stuff thrown in here... >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.
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.