Author: Ingo Bauer
Date: 09:10:25 01/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2005 at 11:00:19, m.d.hurd wrote:
>On January 22, 2005 at 10:21:32, Ingo Bauer wrote:
>
>>On January 22, 2005 at 10:07:51, Ingo Bauer wrote:
>>
>>>Hello
>>>
>>>I want to share this nice position. Most engines have a hard time to avoid Qxc5
>>>but if you make the move (QxQ KxQ) manualy it is easy for the most.
>>>
>>>(Progs have a hard time going to a certain depth with the queens on baord, even
>>>if it is just a capture and recapture, but if the Queens are off they go to a
>>>great depth quite fast)
>>>
>>>[D]2q1k3/1p3p2/4P1pp/P1Qp3P/3K1P2/1P6/8/8 b - -
>>
>>I forgot to mention that the only engine I checked that consequently avoided
>>Qxc5 was Hiarcs 9, but I beleive it does it for the wrong reason. If I made the
>>move QxQ manualy it needed quite long to see the disaster!
>>
>>Bye
>>Ingo
>
>Hello Ingo
>
>List 512 manages to avoid QxQ, What does Shredder 9 RC do ?
Well done, but what I wanted to say is, that QxQ is that bad and all engines
consider it as resonable while if you make QxQ they see more or less immediately
how bad it is!
Because you are interested in here is S9:
Engine: Shredder 9 (256 MB)
by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
12/23 0:00 +1.27 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 gxh5 45.exf7+ Kxf7
46.Kxd5 h4 47.Ke4 Kg6 48.b4 Kf6
49.Kf3 Kf5 50.b5 h5 51.Ke3 (483.847) 688
13/31 0:02 +1.22 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 gxh5 45.exf7+ Kxf7
46.Kxd5 h4 47.Ke4 Kg6 48.b4 h5
49.Kf3 Kf5 50.b5 h3 51.Kg3 h2 (1.577.428) 681
14/40 0:06 +1.24 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 gxh5 45.exf7+ Kxf7
46.Kxd5 h4 47.Ke4 Kg6 48.b4 h3
49.Kf3 h2 50.Kg2 Kf5 51.Kxh2 Kxf4
52.Kg2 Ke4 (4.415.816) 730
15/37 0:10 +1.04 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 gxh5 45.exf7+ Kxf7
46.Kxd5 h4 47.Ke4 Kg6 48.b4 h3
49.Kf3 Kf5 50.b5 h2 (6.975.897) 683
16/39 0:39 +0.79-- 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 (30.415.503) 763
16/39 0:40 +0.29-- 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 (30.684.705) 762
16/40 0:41 -0.55 43...Qxc5+ 44.Kxc5 gxh5 45.exf7+ Kxf7
46.Kxd5 h4 47.Ke4 h3 48.Kf3 Ke6
49.Kg3 Kf5 50.Kxh3 Kxf4 51.Kh4 Ke3
52.Kh5 Kd4 53.Kxh6 (31.364.387) 762
16/45 1:04 -0.54++ 43...Qxe6 (47.988.675) 740
16/45 1:14 -0.19++ 43...Qxe6 (54.305.346) 733
16/46 4:56 +0.05 43...Qxe6 44.hxg6 fxg6 45.Qxd5 (211.593.979) 714
17/48 9:03 +0.03 43...Qxe6 44.hxg6 fxg6 45.Qxd5 Qe7
46.Qg8+ Kd7 47.Qxg6 Qb4+ 48.Ke3 Qe1+
49.Kf3 Qf1+ 50.Ke3 (402.805.616) 741
18/50 14:38 +0.04 43...Qxe6 44.hxg6 Qe4+ 45.Kc3 d4+
46.Qxd4 Qxg6 47.b4 (661.255.080) 752
19/53 22:20 +0.04 43...Qxe6 44.hxg6 Qe4+ 45.Kc3 d4+
46.Qxd4 Qxg6 47.b4 Qc6+ 48.Kb2 Qg2+
49.Ka3 Qh3+ 50.Kb2 Qh2+ 51.Ka3 Qh3+
52.Kb2 Qh2+ 53.Ka3 Qh3+ (1.004.242.605) 749
best move: Qc8xe6 time: 31:23.109 min n/s: 755.677 CPU 99.1% n/s(1CPU):
762.539 nodes: 1.422.998.972 TB: 44.327
Our Hardware seems to be quite close in speed. This is done at a XP@2500MHZ
(~3400+)
Bye
Ingo
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.