Author: Rick Bischoff
Date: 13:13:18 10/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2004 at 13:34:23, Michael Henderson wrote: >Hmmm...your numbers do seem pretty large. I can do 9 plies in < few hundred K >nodes. Hopefully no bugs in extensions/depth parameters? It seems like there >are some unwanted extra-depth searches. > >Michael In this output, I turned off every extension (including check) and disabled iterative deepening: 5 55 16 18853 1. Ne5 Rf6 2. Bg5 Qxb3 3. axb3 6 157 99 130437 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. Nxd7+ Kc8 3. axb3 Kxd7 4. Rxa7 7 157 328 363396 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. Nxd7+ Kc8 3. axb3 Kxd7 4. Rxa7 8 153 1284 1882658 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. Nxd7+ Kc8 3. axb3 Kxd7 4. Rxa7 Nd5 9 153 6368 6609003 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. Nxd7+ Kc8 3. axb3 Kxd7 4. Rxa7 Rb6 5. c4 9 154 14384 17170667 1. b6 axb6 2. Ne5 Kc8 3. Nxg6 hxg6 4. f3 Nd5 5. Bg5 10 138 40361 55631916 1. b6 axb6 2. Ne5 Kc8 3. Nxg6 hxg6 4. Qxe6 Bxe6 5. f3 Bd5 So you can see something else is happening.. In this output, I disabled qsearch and just a static eval: 5 311 56 11935 1. Ne5 Kc8 2. Nxg6 Qxg6 3. Rxe4 6 -38 109 25782 1. Ne5 e3 2. Qxe6 exf2+ 3. Kxf2 Rxe6 7 288 329 128748 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. axb3 Bxb5 3. Nxg6 Nxg6 4. Rxa7 8 36 2117 510910 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. axb3 Bxb5 3. Nxg6 hxg6 4. h3 Rxh3 9 284 5035 2409281 1. Ne5 Qxb3 2. axb3 Bxb5 3. Nxg6 Nxg6 4. c4 Bc6 5. Rxa7 9 287 12681 4452561 1. b6 axb6 2. Ne5 Rd8 3. Ba3 Nc6 4. Nxg6 Qxg6 I stopped it here, since there wasn't the dramatic improvement. Could my poor evaluation function account for this type of explosion?
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.