Author: Joshua Haglund
Date: 11:02:24 05/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>What I've done experimentally against Pablo "Father" was increase the decrease >>the time usage by 400-900%. It used time pressure on him, versus the other way >>around. This caused blunders if I were lucky :) 2 or so years later, I don't >>think this would work as well against Pablo today. He's improved :) >> >>I've posted a game awhile ago, between me and Shredder 9. >> >>I was about 8.00 points down and of course it was an anti-chess closed position. >>Shredder avoided the 50 move rule by sacrafice of his bishop and queen, if I >>remember right. Shredder resigned after the blunders. This is seen in both S8 & >>S9 to avoid 50-move rule, especially pawn advancements. >> >>Joshua Haglund >>toneewa@yahoo.com > >Computer will not choose losing sacrifices against antichess except maybe if >they are in very serious time trouble. > >I guess that playing faster earlier in the game solve the problem of the stupid >sacrifices of Shredder because in that case it will have significantly more time >later so practically it will play slower near move 150. > >It is also easy to tell programs at the same time to use more time if the first >move or the second move in the pv is a capture. > >Uri Note: this might be a small bug at the 50-move rule in Shredder(s). It's hard to get to the 50-move rule where there are no good pieces to exchange or push a pawn. As to Deep Junior 9, it will just claim a draw right away instead of fighting the closed position. Joshua Haglund toneewa@yahoo.com
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.