Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 16:47:41 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 19:10:34, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 02, 2006 at 12:29:06, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>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 > >This is simply not the strongest move, but is also strong. >But Rh1 takes mch longer for computers to find and to fully understand. >S.Taylor I think you're wrong. But, please, post lines to be sure ... > >> >> >>>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.