Author: John Merlino
Date: 18:56:10 04/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2005 at 20:44:38, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 12, 2005 at 18:13:59, John Merlino wrote: > >>On April 12, 2005 at 15:20:35, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2005 at 11:54:35, John Merlino wrote: >>> >>>>On April 12, 2005 at 05:15:43, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 12, 2005 at 00:23:30, John Merlino wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 11, 2005 at 23:36:27, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 11, 2005 at 13:00:10, Rob Basham wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 11, 2005 at 12:24:18, John Merlino wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>New game, >>>>>>>>>>[D]2r1r2k/4R1pp/pb6/1p6/2nqN1QB/P5PP/1PB4K/5R2 w - - 0 1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis by Shredder 8: >>>> >>>><Some Analysis Snipped> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Qxf6 2.Nxf6 Bg1+ 3.Kxg1 Rg8 4.Nxg8 Nxb2 5.Qxg7# >>>>>>>>>> +- (#152) Depth: 12/42 00:00:22 7641kN >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Rxe7 2.Bxd4 Rd8 3.Qh4 Ree8 4.Nc3 Re2+ 5.Nxe2 h6 6.Kh1 Rxd4 7.Rf8# >>>>>>>>>> +- (#152) Depth: 13/18 00:00:23 7840kN >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Rxe7 2.Bxd4 Rd8 3.Qh4 Bxd4 4.Qxe7 Rg8 5.Rf8 Bg1+ 6.Kxg1 Nd6 7.Qxd6 b4 >>>>>>>>>>8.Rxg8+ Kxg8 9.Qd8+ Kf7 >>>>>>>>>> +- (#150) Depth: 14/40 00:00:43 15586kN >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Rxe7 2.Bxd4 Rd8 3.Qh4 Bxd4 4.Qxe7 Rg8 5.Rf8 Bc5 6.Nxc5 Nd6 7.Qxd6 b4 >>>>>>>>>>8.Rxg8+ Kxg8 9.Qe6+ Kf8 10.Nd7# >>>>>>>>>> +- (#150) Depth: 15/36 00:00:43 15751kN >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Rxe7 2.Bxd4 Rd8 3.Qh4 h5 4.Qxe7 Ne5 5.Qxe5 Bxd4 6.Qxh5+ Kg8 7.Bb3+ Rd5 >>>>>>>>>>8.Bxd5# >>>>>>>>>> +- (#150) Depth: 16/38 00:00:47 17089kN >>>>>>>>>>1.Bf6 Rxe7 2.Bxd4 Rce8 3.Qf5 Kg8 4.Ng5 g6 5.Qd5+ Re6 6.Rf8+ Kxf8 7.Qf3+ Ke7 >>>>>>>>>>8.Qb7+ Bc7 9.Qxc7+ Kf8 10.Qg7# >>>>>>>>>> +- (#150) Depth: 17/36 00:00:49 17858kN >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>(, 11.04.2005) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Shredder's output is incredibly bizarre here. The position is a Mate in 9, but >>>>>>>>>not a single PV shows mate in 9 moves (although there are mates shown in 10, 7 >>>>>>>>>and even 5 moves!??). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Conclusion: Shredder found the best move, but did NOT conclusively find the mate >>>>>>>>>in 9. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>THe Mate in 9 is not forced; Shredder gave all the variations leading to >>>>>>>Mate after the Key Move. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With "Best PLay" by Black it's Mate in 9. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Black errs.. he gets Mated sooner. >>>>>> >>>>>>I understand that, but Shredder's output still makes no sense at all. What do >>>>>>you mean by "Shredder gave all the variations leading to Mate after the Key >>>>>>Move"? >>>>> A Program evaluates every possible move at each ply depth; >>>>>that is one complete iteration. >>>>>Shredder found a Mate at ply 12, another at ply 13, another at ply 14, >>>>>another at ply 15, another at play 16 etc. >>>>> >>>>>What don't you understand? >>>> >>>>Simple -- take this PV from Shredder (which is the first one listed above): >>>> >>>>1.Bf6 Qxf6 2.Nxf6 Bg1+ 3.Kxg1 Rg8 4.Nxg8 Nxb2 5.Qxg7# >>>> +- (#152) Depth: 12/42 00:00:22 7641kN >>>> >>>>A program should not announce a Mate for the side to move that is simply not >>>>possible with best play. If I were to stop analysis at this point and post my >>>>findings here, it would be soundly refuted by the simple fact that there is no >>>>Mate in 5 for White. >>>> >>>>It seems bizarre to me that, at depth 12, the Shredder thinks that there is a >>>>forced mate in 5 (only 9 plies away). >>>> >>>>jm >>> The Program did what a Program is supposed to do! >>> >>>I "clipped" the analysis. >>>Do you have any doubt, that if I had let it run,. that it would stabalize >>>on the Mate in 9 with a deeper search? >> >>No, I have no doubt about that at all. But there are two problems with that: >> >>1) Anybody could say that about any program with regards to a forced mate of >>reasonably short distance, and >> >>2) It's not the ability to find the mate that I have called into question. It is >>the PV output that makes no sense. (Notice that I haven't even mentioned the >>"#150" that Shredder regularly puts out for no reason....) >> >>jm > >That's because you don't have clue what the Program is doing! If you say so.... jm
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.