Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 08:39:46 09/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2004 at 03:30:42, Chris Welty wrote: >On September 01, 2004 at 00:51:47, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>I know this is a long shot throwing this out there without much more >>info, but perhaps I'll get lucky and someone has seen this before. >>It's appeared on this bulletin board about 6 years ago. >> >>[D]4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id >>"WAC.141"; >> >>without mate threat code > >>10/46 g2f1 471.92 -825 92873175 g2f1 e8b8 h1g1 f4e6 h4h5 >>11/46> g2f1 666.85 -575 133140320 g2f1 e8b8 h1g1 f4e6 h4h5 > >Perhaps the problem's not in the mate threat extension but somewhere else? When >Altamax sees Qxf4 the PV is only 10 ply long: >6 347 0 196349 Qxf4 Bxf4 Rxh5 gxh5 Rxh5 Bh6 Rxh6 Qg3+ Kxg3 Kf8 196kn /2.80s = >70.2kn/s Agreed. Something odd is happening. Until I find it, perhaps Tord's Botvinnik-Markoff extension will help, or perhaps examine all checking moves at the first ply of quiescence, not just all captures and check-evasions. > >241/300 sounds pretty good! I'm only happy in that I didn't optimize individual positions. On the other hand, I've been doing this now for 4 1/2 months solid and am showing some signs it is catching up with me! Stuart
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.