Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 07:38:02 04/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1999 at 09:53:24, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all: >In answer to a post by J. Walker that showed a game where CSTAl is badly >defeated, I have received an email where some doubst about the correction of the > test are shed, with the following argument I post here without comments: > > > >....V's and times (for a slightly slower computer, P2 200) for move 19. a5 ?? > >depth secs move eval >2 0 Qxf7 -9.99 >2 0 Ng4 +1.12 >2 0 a5 +1.41 >3 0 a5 -10.38 >3 0 Ng4 +1.12 >3 0 Nf3 +1.17 >4 0 Nf3 +1.15 >5 2 Nf3 +1.09 >6 9 Nf3 +0.74 >7 27 Nf3 +0.64 and sticks with Nf3 from thereon > >an "examine e-tal 10" on ICC will pull in the game. >This also gives time information. >At move 19 E-tal had 2:16 (2 minutes 16 secs) on its clock. 2:16 in blitz at >this >move number translates to a 4 second time allowance for the move. All this >is checkable >with a release version of CSTal II. > >Quite apart from the time panic which would be induced by the eval >of -10.38, >there is no way that the release version would timeout on depth 2, at (less >than) >zero seconds elapsed time unless the operator was pressing the move-now key. > >If the program was left to its own devices it would timeout after the depth >5 >iteration (2 secs), or during the depth 6 iteration (before 9 secs). > >end of the quotation. Could be a bug with resumption of adjourned game, if there was a disconnect. Various versions of my program have had similar problems, including the current version, due to a change in the way some kinds of disconnects are handled by ICC. bruce
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.