Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:07:53 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 12:38:51, David Eppstein wrote: >On November 02, 1999 at 12:33:51, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Here are the C.A.P. records for those positions. My question is, "Are the >>suggested best moves really the best moves?" Only one agrees pm for bm, but it >>is very difficult to know without a thorough analysis. >> >>2b1rr1k/1p5p/1Ppp2q1/p3bN2/2P1n3/5R2/PBQ3BP/3R2K1 w - - acd 13 acn 1000; ce 190; >>pv Bxe5+ dxe5 Nh4 Qg4 Qxe4 Qxe4 Rxf8+ Rxf8 Bxe4 Be6 Nf3 Rf4 Rd8+ Kg7 Re8 Bxc4 >>Rxe5 Bxa2 Rxa5 Rxe4 Rxa2; pm Bxe5+; bm Bxe5+; id "ECM.123"; >>... > >Dann -- >Your CAP records have an evaluation (ce) and principal variation (pv) that are >obviously meaningful only for some particular version of some particular program >(I assume crafty 16.something). Shouldn't you also include that version >information in the record? That information would be useful. However, I do not carry it. That particular record is from Rebel. Since Rebel and Hiarcs do not give node counts when the answer is unknown, the Rebel and Hiarcs records have artificial node counts. For Rebel, I use 1000. As for which version of Crafty was used, or even which version of Rebel or Hiarcs, I have no idea. Yet the pv and ce are still useful, because it is the explanation of what is planned.
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.