Author: allan johnson
Date: 02:44:17 01/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2000 at 01:29:06, Chessfun wrote: >On January 02, 2000 at 22:41:19, allan johnson wrote: > >> With all the talk on how strong programmes are today I >>decided to put a few of my programmes to the test.The one >>I have submitted comes from The Big Book Of Combinations >>edited by Eric Shiller.So far I have tested only Rebel Century >>which fails to find the best move(recommended by Shiller)in >>10 minutes.My machine is a Celeron 433 64 mb ram.Is this >>position too complicated for computers to solve? I'd >>appreciate feed back on responses from Fritz6 and Hiarcs7 >>and the like. >>Thanks Allan >>r4k1r/1p3pp1/2b1p1np/p3P3/3PN1q1/4Q1P1/5P1P/R1R2BK1 white >>to move >>Rxc6! pxc6 >>Be2 > >Hiarcs 7.32 Cel 433 >1. f3..Qh5....line ends at depth 10/30 after 10 minutes. > >Fritz 5.32 >1. f3..Qh5....line ends at depth 13/40 after 10 minutes. > >Fritz 6 >1. f3..Qh5....line ends at depth 14/38 after 10 minutes. > >After feeding Hiarcs 7.32 1. Rxc6...bxc6 2. Be2 it evaluates: >2.....Qh3. 3. Nd6 +0.71 after feeding these two moves in it cannot >find many moves it likes for black. > >I myself think this type of position is easy for a human to see Rxc6 >than for a computer. > >Thanks. Yes I agree but I'm puzzled as to why! Will programmers ever find a means by which they can get their programmes to make temporary inferior exchanges?Surely the plies required to determine Rxc6 is winning(admittedly not everwhelmingly) is not that deep? Allan
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.