Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:54:56 05/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 16:28:43, Francis Monkman wrote: >Here's another nice one, from my first game with Hiarcs 2.1 in late 94. > >2r1r1k1/3q1p2/p1bp2pp/1pn1pNb1/4P3/2P2QNP/PPB2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 24 > >White's 24th is a killer, 24. Rad1 (Black has just played 23. ...g6). > >Crafty 16.6 and CSTal II both fail to get this after 30 minutes each, >preferring respectively 24. h4 and 24. Qg4, neither of which wins. > >LGG 2.0 comes up trumps again: > >depth=12 +0.23 a1d1 g6f5 g3f5 e8e6 h3h4 g5d8 f5d6 e6d6 >d1d6 d7d6 f3g4 g8h7 g4c8 d8h4 c8f5 h7g8 e1d1 d6e6 f5h5 >Nodes: 70970656 NPS: 19444015 >Time: 00:00:03.65 > >(In fact, Black played 27. ...Rb8 in the game, but if 27. ...Rxd6 >as in LGG's analysis, White should then play 28. Qg3+ and 29. Qxe5) > >I only tried these three programs so far (naturally, attempts in 94/5 >by Geniuses 2-4 and Fritz 3 failed) -- any offers, ...Jeremiah? > >Francis Just looking at what you posted, this appears to be a case of a program coming up with a random move for the wrong reason. IE the eval of +.23 is not exactly 'winning'. And while the moves from CSTal/Crafty might not win either, what makes Rad1 a winner? And if it does, do you _really_ want a program that will play such a move without having a clue why it is playing it? My opinion is that there are probably several reasonable moves here, none are outright winning or losing...
This page took 0.01 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.