Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 09:29:06 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 11:53:20, stuart taylor wrote: >In which it clearly seems analytically provable that Spaasky's play was >faultless, yet extremely hard to see as being so, and is also very deep and >unclear....except after great and deep analysis. > >But as usual, I'm not organised enough to post the position again, although I >did atleast once before. > >Questions are >1)How long does it take for Rybka to find .....rh1? This post show that Rh1 is not the best move, Bxe3 is stronger http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=346018 >2)And how long does it take to find .....h4? >3)BUT, DOES it ever find the move before, which is .....h5? >4)Then, finally, DOES it ever find (before that)......Ng4? > >I'm sorry I didn't put up the moves again, but anyone who is familiar with it >will readily find the position I'm refering to. > >CY maybe you can ask Jack to put it up! > >For questions 3 and 4, I wouldn't consider it extreme to give Rybka 5 hours >each. But even if it finds answer to q.2 with answer tro q.1 in its analysis, >within only a few minutes, that would also be very good. >S.Taylor
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.