Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 08:12:28 07/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2004 at 20:40:35, John Merlino wrote: >On July 18, 2004 at 16:55:24, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On July 18, 2004 at 16:22:21, Roy Brunjes wrote: >> >>>In a recent game between Shredder 8 and Chessmaster 9000 on ICC the following >>>position arose: >>> >>>[D]r1b3k1/pp2n1b1/1qn1prpp/2pp4/5B1P/2PP1NP1/PPQ2PB1/RN3RK1 b - - 0 13 >>> >>>Chessmaster played 13. ... Rxf4!? >>> >>>Is this sound? I have analyzed it with the help of both Chessmaster and >>>Shredder 8 and it seems pretty good to me, but I do not have the CPU horsepower >>>and/or time necessary to test as many programs and all of the possible >>>variations as the group does here. >>> >>>The game was won in convincing fashion at 10m+10sec time control as follows: >>> >>>[Event "ICC Game"] >>>[Site ""] >>>[Date "2004.7.17"] >>>[Round ""] >>>[White "Shredder 8 running on Pentium IV 2.8 GHz"] >>>[Black "SKR_Jr_Mix running on Centrino 1.5 GHz"] >>>[TimeControl "300+5"] >>>[Result "0-1"] >>> >>>1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.c3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nge7 7.O-O d5 8.d3 O-O >>>9.e5 h6 10.h4 Qb6 11.Bf4 f6 12.exf6 Rxf6 13.Qc2 Rxf4 14.gxf4 Bd7 15.Qd2 >>>Rf8 16.Re1 Qc7 17.Na3 Rxf4 18.Rad1 Nf5 19.h5 Nce7 20.hxg6 Nxg6 21.Nc2 >>>Nfh4 22.Nxh4 Rxh4 23.Kf1 Nf4 24.Qe3 e5 25.Rd2 Nxg2 0-1 >>> >>> >>>Note1: I set CM9000 to a time control of 5m+5sec to allow for manual operation >>>of the program on ICC without losing on time. >>> >>>Note2: Yes, Shredder's opening line is weird -- it is not using the standard >>>book, so no flames about that please. >>> >>>Roy >> >>Personally I would not assay this sac and I've been known to throw >>away a lot of wood in my time in sacrificial lines. GA with a small >>transposition table, aspiration, verified null move (R=2), extremely >>simple evaluation, only a couple of extensions, a recent strong >>improvement in a test suite due to a bunch of hash fixes spurred >>by others comments on this board, not surprisingly also does not play >>Rxf4 (see below for an analysis). >> >>The reason I would not personally assay the move is that my black queen >>cannot easily come into the attack as rapidly as I would like after the sac. >>It will take me 2-3 moves to get the queen over and that gives white >>time to consolidate somewhat. >> >>NULLMV TT(524288) Alpha=-1023 Beta=977 Maxdepth=9999999 MaxTime=999 >>1. b6d8 0.00 21 49 b6d8 >>2. b6d8 0.01 -19 664 b6d8 c2d1 >>3. b6d8 0.02 -9 2724 b6d8 c2d1 c8d7 >>4. f6f8 0.15 -18 30688 f6f8 f1e1 b6d8 c2d1 >>5. f6f8 0.43 -8 88445 f6f8 f1e1 b6d8 c2d1 c8d7 >>6. f6f5 3.62 -18 700575 f6f5 f4c1 b6d8 c2d1 e6e5 b1d2 >>7. f6f5 8.44 -14 1655603 f6f5 g2h3 f5f8 b1d2 b6d8 c2d1 c8d7 >>8. e7f5 59.42 -11 11190314 e7f5 c2c1 f6f7 f1e1 b6d8 c1d1 >>9. f6f5 296.14 -5 50368361 f6f5 g2h3 f5f7 f1e1 e7f5 b1d2 b6d8 c2d1 c8d7 >> >>Still, it is better than the usual computerish move and I like to see >>this kind of thing even if it were to be proven unsound later but I would >>not personally play it. >> >>Stuart > >Just out of curiosity, what is your rating? > >jm Class player, probably B. A few expert scalps over the years. So nothing major. My program regularly beats me.
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.