Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:50:23 10/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2004 at 16:34:20, Rob Basham wrote:
>On October 05, 2004 at 14:11:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>On October 05, 2004 at 13:52:36, Art Basham wrote:
>>
>>>1. a3 {0s} Nc6 {+0.02/6 1s} 2. d4 {19s (Nf3)} d6 {+0.18/5
>>>0s} 3. d5 {13s (Nf3)} Ne5 {+0.21/5 0s} 4. f4 {12s (Nf3)}
>>>Ng4 {+0.19/5 0s} 5. e4 {9s} c6 {-0.06/7 4s} 6. Nc3 {17s}
>>>Qb6 {+0.10/8 0s} 7. Nh3 {11s} N8f6 {+0.24/7 2s} 8. Be2 {7s
>>>(Bc4)} Bd7 {+0.02/1 0s} 9. Bf3 {16s (Qd2)} Ne3 {+0.40/2 2s}
>>>10. Qd3 {10s (Bxe3)} Neg4 {+0.04/1 0s} 11. Qe2 {14s} cxd5
>>>{+0.47/2 0s} 12. e5 {17s (Nxd5)} dxe5 {+1.26/1 1s} 13. fxe5
>>>{7s (Nxd5)} Qd4 {-1.28/1 0s} 14. exf6 {9s} gxf6 {-3.30/6
>>>2s} 15. Nxd5 {16s (Bxd5)} Rd8 {-M1/2 0s} 16. Nc7# {9s} 1-0
>>>a
>>>
>>>1. a3 was a "forced opening" to take out any "book moves"...etc.
>>
>>Seems you handicapped Shredder a bit more than you indicated.
>>
>
>No, not at all...
>
>both computers had 5 seconds per move...:-)
I do not believe that shredder can blunder by not seeing mate in 1 and 15...Rd8
is helping white to give mate in 1.
Something must be wrong.
Maybe your computer ran other processes so shredder was at low priority and only
used a small minority of the cpu time so the fact that it had 5 seconds did not
help it when it could only use only a very small part of them so it could not
get more than depth 1.
Maybe you gave shredder too much hash tables and shredder needed to use the hard
disk for the hash tables.
Uri
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.