Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:42:35 12/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2005 at 05:41:45, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 23, 2005 at 02:54:51, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>history >> >>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=30548 >> >>FEN: [d]r1b1k2r/3qbppp/p4n2/3p4/Q7/2NB4/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 w kq - 0 1 >> >> >>Rybka 1.01 Preview 2: >> 3 00:00 1.045 1.070.080 +0.80 1.Re1 >> 3 00:00 1.149 1.176.576 +0.98 1.Bb5 >> 4 00:00 1.312 1.343.488 +0.67 1.Bb5 >> 4 00:00 3.806 243.584 +0.83 1.Re1 >> 5 00:00 5.783 185.056 +0.96 1.Re1 d4 >> 6 00:00 14.035 181.922 +0.88 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 >> 7 00:00 23.875 173.390 +0.78 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Nb6 >> 8 00:01 57.427 187.876 +0.90 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Bf4 Bb4 >> 9 00:01 109.908 184.501 +0.86 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Bf4 d4 4.Nb6 >> 10 00:02 232.134 187.760 +0.85 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Be3 d4 4.Bxd4 Rd8 >>5.Bxf6 >> 11 00:04 633.424 190.380 +0.93 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Be3 Rb8 4.Bxa6 0-0 >>5.Rac1 >> 12 00:09 1.649.718 189.661 +0.78 1.Re1 d4 2.Bf4 Qxa4 3.Nxa4 Be6 4.Nb6 Ra7 >>5.Be5 0-0 >> 13 00:17 3.141.957 190.828 +0.86 1.Re1 d4 2.Bf4 Qxa4 3.Nxa4 Be6 4.Nb6 Ra7 >>5.Rac1 0-0 6.a3 >> 14 00:30 5.750.102 196.571 +0.80 1.Re1 d4 2.Bf4 Qxa4 3.Nxa4 Be6 4.Nb6 Ra7 >>5.Rac1 0-0 6.a3 g6 >> 15 01:32 17.213.645 193.036 +0.89 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Be3 0-0 4.Nc5 Nd7 >>5.Nxa6 Ne5 6.Bb5 Rfc8 7.Rac1 >> 16 02:24 26.789.337 190.356 +0.83 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Be3 0-0 4.Nc5 Nd7 >>5.Nxa6 Ne5 6.Bb5 Rfc8 7.Rac1 Rxc1 >> 17 04:35 51.529.945 191.976 +0.88 1.Re1 Qxa4 2.Nxa4 Be6 3.Be3 0-0 4.Nc5 Nd7 >>5.Nxe6 fxe6 6.Rac1 Bb4 7.Red1 Ne5 > > > >That is a typical example for the fallacy of the concept of "finding a move". >Here we assume that 1. Re1 is a top move the engine should find but FRITZ for >example doesnt find it, not because it's weaker than Rybka but because in the >given line 3-00 is weak. 3...Nd7 and always the little threat Bb4 in mind gives >Black some relief. As usual it makes not much sense to prove that some engine >finds a single move in a position of choice. It's the whole game that should be >compared. Since long we know that a single move dosnt prove either this nor >that, it all depends... so to speak. Are you a GM? No? Then maybe stop being so pompous and realize that this is uncanny for an engine. No one is trying to "prove" the best move, although Re1! is the best move in this case, I believe, and Bb5+?! is a mediocre move. The point I'm making is you're missing the point.
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.