Author: Albert Silver
Date: 21:26:49 03/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2005 at 22:11:35, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>On March 21, 2005 at 21:37:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On March 21, 2005 at 20:50:47, Will Singleton wrote:
>>
>>>Amateur 2.86 (10 sec) in this position (p4 2.8ghz):
>>>
>[D]2Rb2k1/1p2qbp1/5p2/4pQ1p/4PP1N/6BP/6PK/5r2 w - - bm Ng6; "icc game";
>>>
>>>12 -61 1003 4176977 Ng6 Bxg6 Qxg6 h4 Bxh4 Rxf4 Bg3 Rf1 Qg4 Qe8 Qe2 Ra1 Qg4
>>>13 -49 1232 5114061 Ng6 Bxg6 Qxg6 h4 Bxh4 Rxf4 Bg3 Rf1 Qg4 Rb1 Qe2 Rb4 Qa2 Kh7
>>>14 -48 1694 6989625 Ng6 Bxg6 Qxg6 h4 Bxh4 Rxf4 Bg3 Rf1 Qg4 Qd6 Qe2 Rd1 Qa2 Kh8
>>>Qf7
>>>15 -43 3391 13862984 Ng6 Bxg6 Qxg6 h4 Bxh4 Rxf4 Be1 Rf1 Ba5 Rd1 Qg3 Rd4 Rxd8
>>>Rxd8 Bxd8 Qxd8 Qb3 Kh7 Qxb7
>>
>>Even if we ignore the 3x difference in hardware, Amateur still wins by 0.07:
>>
>>1. Rc8-b8 Qe7-c7 2. Qf5-c8 Qc7xc8 3. Rb8xc8 Rf1-d1 4. f4xe5 Bf7-e6 5. Rc8-b8
>>g7-g5 6. Nh4-f5 h5-h4
>> = (-0.86) Depth: 12/28 00:00:07.90 10619kN (1344 KN/s, 349 splits, 11 aborts)
>>1. Nh4-g6 Bf7xg6 2. Qf5xg6 e5xf4 3. Bg3xf4 Rf1xf4 4. Qg6xh5 f6-f5 5. Qh5-d1
>>Kg8-f7 6. Rc8xd8 Qe7xe4
>> = (-0.58) Depth: 12/28 00:00:10.10 13486kN (1335 KN/s, 400 splits,
>>1. Nh4-g6 Bf7xg6 2. Qf5xg6 e5xf4 3. Bg3-h4 Rf1-d1 4. Qg6xh5 Rd1-d2 5. Bh4-e1
>>Rd2-d3 6. Rc8-b8 Qe7xe4 7. Be1-a5 f4-f3 8. Rb8xd8 Rd3xd8 9. Ba5xd8 f3xg2
>> = (-0.29) Depth: 16/35 00:00:30.14 41041kN (1361 KN/s, 1104 splits, 45 aborts)
>>
>>anthony
>
>But being faster in one position doesn't say much of its strength compare to
>other stronger program that can't solve it as fast .
>
>Jorge
?? How much more proof do you want?
Albert
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.