Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:00:57 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 01:49:30, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>On January 12, 2000 at 18:45:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On January 12, 2000 at 18:27:23, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>On January 12, 2000 at 16:11:31, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>>
>>>> DT Ferret Chop Dark Thought
>>>> 4x450 500 500mhz 21264
>>>> -------- -------- -------- ------------
>>>>1 6:00:00 1:56:54 0:12:25
>>>>2 0:02:00 0:00:33
>>>>3
>>>>4 2:30:00 0:25:46
>>>>5 2:00:00
>>>>6
>>>>7 6:00:00 1:27:00
>>>>8 1:30:46
>>>>9
>>>>10 0:02:00 0:00:29 0:50:00
>>>>11 0:05:00 0:00:13 0:12:00 0:04:32
>>>>
>>>>I looked at Shep's site, which includes results mainly on slow hardware (P6/200
>>>>or 233).
>>>>
>>>>http://sccs.8m.com/nolot.html
>>>>
>>>>Many programs find #1 in under 20 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>CM5555 finds #2 in something under six hours.
>>>>
>>>>Rebel 10 found #10 in a couple minutes.
>>>>
>>>>Mine finds #2 quickly due to extension successes. I'm surprised it found #8 at
>>>>all, the score though was only +0.75.
>>>>
>>>>I will include more information as it becomes available. I'll run #5 for a day
>>>>or two.
>>>
>>>Just a question: is it sure they are all 100% correct? I never checked this
>>>myself, but I recall someone (in fact I think it was you) mentioning in RGCC
>>>some time back that Nolot wasn't absolutely sure about all of them.
>>
>>The axb5 sacrafice is more a longterm sacrafice, which i don't see,
>>but the idea for black is to blow up the center which is possible if the
>>queen of white is at the other side of the board (a8).
>>
>>the Nxg5 instead of bxg5 move is very difficult but i don't doubt it
>>wins in the end, i lack just several tenths of positional eval when searching
>>quite deep for DIEP to play it. All other moves i could verify to be correct,
>>though from Ng5 it's a big mystery to me what line(s) DIEP needs to find in
>>order to see it.
>>
>>The second problem (Rxc5) is really mating extensions dependant. I've had
>>versions of DIEP which extended quite a bit threats which failed high
>>within seconds at 7 ply. Later it needed 8 ply to find it, and that
>>continuesly was a ply more till it needed 10 ply. Then i turned
>>off the threat extension, plan to turn it on real soon and test
>>again at NOLOT.
>
>What do you think of #9, Ng5? Here is the original analysis:
>
>1.Ng5!! hxg5 2.hxg5! Rac8 3.Nf6!! Nb8
> (3...gxf6 4.gxf6 Rfe8 5.Qh5 Kg8 6.Rxc5! Bg6! 7.Qh4 Bxc5 8.Be4 Ne7 9.Kg2 Qd5
> 10.Bxd5+-)
>4.Qh5 Bxf6 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Rxc5 Rxc5 7.Be4 f5 8.Kg2 Rg8 9.Rh1 Rg7 10.Bh6 Nd7
>11.Bxg7+ Kxg7 12.Qxh7+ 1-0
>
>Is it certain that all these moves are optimal? I don't really see any computer
>being able to find this one...
That looks like Baudot's original comments about this, here is his text in full.
Hsu said he thought it was a positional sacrifice, and DT couldn't find it
within an hour.
bruce
---
# Position: 9
# Move: W
r....r.k Weinstein - Elyoseph, Israel 1992
....bppb This one is really beautiful and should resist computers
..n.p..p for quite a long time, maybe until next century?
p.n.P... 1.Ng5!! hxg5 2.hxg5! Rac8 3.Nf6!! Nb8 (black can also
.p.p.BNP try 3...gxf6, which loses if white play precisely : 4.gxf6
...P.NP. 4...Rfe8 (best defense) 5.Qh5 Rg8 6.Rxc5! Bg6! 7.Qh4 Bxc5
qP..QPB. 8.Be4 Ne7 9Kg2 Qd5 10.Bxd5+-)
..RR..K. 4.Qh5 Bxf6 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Rxc5 Rxc5 7.Be4 f5 8.Kg2 Rg8 9.Rh1
9...Rg7 10.Bh6 Nd7 11.Bxg7+ Kxg7 12.Qxh7+ 1-0
In fact, Pierre is not sure this one is 100% correct. Any improvements
are wellcome!
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.