- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Does it make sense to use deep engine search?

#12

Does it make sense to use deep engine search to the point that it has tunnel vision. The deeper it goes the more it tries to prove a branch of the tree. I would rather want an engine that has a wider peripherical vision of the game. I think engines are narrow minded, and will be until they solve all the fortresses.

An engine seems to be searching too deep in a line of thought. It's like an icecream cone. Eat the edges away until you reach the narrow end of the cone. Well in a way I see engines do that to the position. It's not logical to assume that all the best moves will be played for the rest of the game. The engine is a robot following a programmers orders. If it reaches a dead end draw, will you follow it there too ? At some point in the game there were advantages and then they got lost. Find another engine and test out those advantages.

Does it make sense to use deep engine search to the point that it has tunnel vision. The deeper it goes the more it tries to prove a branch of the tree. I would rather want an engine that has a wider peripherical vision of the game. I think engines are narrow minded, and will be until they solve all the fortresses. An engine seems to be searching too deep in a line of thought. It's like an icecream cone. Eat the edges away until you reach the narrow end of the cone. Well in a way I see engines do that to the position. It's not logical to assume that all the best moves will be played for the rest of the game. The engine is a robot following a programmers orders. If it reaches a dead end draw, will you follow it there too ? At some point in the game there were advantages and then they got lost. Find another engine and test out those advantages.
#14

Look at the start and the end after 5 moves. See the result it is expecting.

+0.3 Stockfish 14+NNUE
Depth 49 CLOUD

PV1 (+0.3) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6
The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(0.0)(0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
Same as PV 5

PV2 (+0.20 1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Bd7
The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(-0.2)(-1.1) (-6.6) (-7.9)
There is more options that favor the Black pieces.

PV3 (+0.2) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O
The horizon of the line choices (+0.4)(+0.2)(+0.1) (0.0) (0.0)
Best next move (+0.4) but it is in PV 3 line, which was not considered Best first move.

PV4 (+0.1) 1.g3 e5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e4 4.Nd4 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5
The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(+0.2)(+0.2) (+0.1) (+0.1)
Best option. It reached move 5 without changing it's mind and White still has 5 good advantages. Maybe this is the mainline.

PV5 (+0.1) 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 Qb6
The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(0.0)(0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
Same as PV 1

Note that PV 1 and PV 5 end with the same results on move 5. But it's forced to be played or else it's a balanced game.

Note that if you played the PV 3 line instead of PV1, the end result is forecasted to be (+0.4) and you still have other options.

Note that they are all candidate moves. Engine recommends the first ply not the rest of the line.

Once that ply is played, the other plys might change, because it can now evaluate one ply deeper.

The only way to make sure that in five moves it will be (+0.4) is playing out 3125 incomplete games.

https://lichess.org/study/LrpbJf0R

Look at the start and the end after 5 moves. See the result it is expecting. +0.3 Stockfish 14+NNUE Depth 49 CLOUD PV1 (+0.3) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(0.0)(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Same as PV 5 PV2 (+0.20 1.Nf3 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Bd7 The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(-0.2)(-1.1) (-6.6) (-7.9) There is more options that favor the Black pieces. PV3 (+0.2) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O The horizon of the line choices (+0.4)(+0.2)(+0.1) (0.0) (0.0) Best next move (+0.4) but it is in PV 3 line, which was not considered Best first move. PV4 (+0.1) 1.g3 e5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e4 4.Nd4 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(+0.2)(+0.2) (+0.1) (+0.1) Best option. It reached move 5 without changing it's mind and White still has 5 good advantages. Maybe this is the mainline. PV5 (+0.1) 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 Qb6 The horizon of the line choices (+0.3)(0.0)(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Same as PV 1 Note that PV 1 and PV 5 end with the same results on move 5. But it's forced to be played or else it's a balanced game. Note that if you played the PV 3 line instead of PV1, the end result is forecasted to be (+0.4) and you still have other options. Note that they are all candidate moves. Engine recommends the first ply not the rest of the line. Once that ply is played, the other plys might change, because it can now evaluate one ply deeper. The only way to make sure that in five moves it will be (+0.4) is playing out 3125 incomplete games. https://lichess.org/study/LrpbJf0R
#15

Depth is meaningless without solid foundation. Is best move really a solid foundation ? If it is, it's not showing it in the suggested path to follow. So why does it show a path that it will not follow on the next ply?

Depth is meaningless without solid foundation. Is best move really a solid foundation ? If it is, it's not showing it in the suggested path to follow. So why does it show a path that it will not follow on the next ply?
#16

I think it's pretty well known that engine evaluations in opening are not useful. Especially this early. See all the threads about Pirc/Scandinavian/CaroKann being inaccuracies. And just because engine evaluations numbers can be very inflated does not mean engines are not useful.

Simple example: You want to evaluate a classic bishop sacrifice (Bxh7) in a specific position. Your own analysis shows the move appears to be good. You double-check it with StockFish and it finds a refutation you missed.

Again, StockFish (or any engine) can be useful to analyze games, but you have to use common sense. It's just a tool that you have to use wisely. But there are caveats.

I think it's pretty well known that engine evaluations in opening are not useful. Especially this early. See all the threads about Pirc/Scandinavian/CaroKann being inaccuracies. And just because engine evaluations numbers can be very inflated does not mean engines are not useful. Simple example: You want to evaluate a classic bishop sacrifice (Bxh7) in a specific position. Your own analysis shows the move appears to be good. You double-check it with StockFish and it finds a refutation you missed. Again, StockFish (or any engine) can be useful to analyze games, but you have to use common sense. It's just a tool that you have to use wisely. But there are caveats.
#17

Should all stockfish "refutation" be human instructive... what if it is a sneaky wiggly canyon in a plateau or otherwise above see level landscape of opposite side outcome that most if not all humans can only see?

narrow canyon.. crevasse. along like a long line from some opening repertoire, like a very long trap perhaps? something that might separate the position first players from the sequence depth first memory experts...

Should all stockfish "refutation" be human instructive... what if it is a sneaky wiggly canyon in a plateau or otherwise above see level landscape of opposite side outcome that most if not all humans can only see? narrow canyon.. crevasse. along like a long line from some opening repertoire, like a very long trap perhaps? something that might separate the position first players from the sequence depth first memory experts...
#18

Is it better for the engine if it tries to simplify the game as quickly as possible ?
Do engines try to create closed games or open games?
A human that is trying to close an opening vs Engine, probably ends up with a semi-open game.
The quicker we exchange pieces the stronger the engine gets.

So my rule of thumb would be to not simplify the game before a sure strategical advantage.

Let the engines go to a max depth of say 250.

That still will not fix it's strategy problem. If there are no holes in the strategy, then in theory the engine cannot win.

Is it better for the engine if it tries to simplify the game as quickly as possible ? Do engines try to create closed games or open games? A human that is trying to close an opening vs Engine, probably ends up with a semi-open game. The quicker we exchange pieces the stronger the engine gets. So my rule of thumb would be to not simplify the game before a sure strategical advantage. Let the engines go to a max depth of say 250. That still will not fix it's strategy problem. If there are no holes in the strategy, then in theory the engine cannot win.
#19

FEN: r2rq1k1/1pp2ppp/8/p4b2/n7/1P2P3/3BBPPP/R1Q2RK1 b - - 0 20
hashfull: 3%, ponderhits: 71%, wdl: 14 975 11, currmove: h4
depth: 31/42 score: +0.03 time: 10002 nodes: 5112925 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd3 Rxa5 Rxb3 Kh2 Rb7 Ra8+ Kg7 Rc8 Rb2 f3 Rc2 h5 c5 Kg3 c4 hxg6 hxg6
depth: 30/40 score: +0.03 time: 7185 nodes: 3735167 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd3 Rxa5 Rxb3 Kh2 Rb7 Ra8+ Kg7 Rc8 Rb2 f3 Rc2 h5 c5 Kg3 c4 hxg6 hxg6
depth: 29/43 score: +0.04 time: 5401 nodes: 2794733 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd5 Rc1 Rh5 g3 Rb5 Rxc6 Rxb3 Ra6 Rb5 Ra8+ Kg7 Ra7 Rf5 Kg2
depth: 28/38 score: +0.01 time: 4748 nodes: 2448402 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 f4 Rd5 Rc1 Rb5 Rxc6 Rxb3 Kf2 h5 Ra6 Rb5 Ra7 Kg7 Kg3 Kf8
depth: 27/34 score: +0.04 time: 3205 nodes: 1648330 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 Rd3 h4 Rxb3 Bxc6 bxc6 Ra7 Rb5 g3 h5 Kg2 c5 Kf3
depth: 26/34 score: +0.04 time: 2529 nodes: 1310228 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 Rd3 b4 Rb3 h3 Bxf3 Ra8+ Kg7 gxf3 Rxb4 Rb8 Rb1+ Kh2
depth: 25/30 score: +0.06 time: 1860 nodes: 963774 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rdc1 Qb2 h3 h5 Qb5 Be6 Rcb1 Qc2 Qa4 Ra7 b4 Qxa4 Rxa4 b6 bxa5 bxa5
depth: 24/29 score: +0.04 time: 1368 nodes: 699870 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rdc1 Qb2 h3 h5 Qb5 Be6 Rab1 Qa3 Rc5 Rd2 Qxb7 Qxc5 Qxa8+ Kg7
depth: 23/38 score: +0.00 time: 1024 nodes: 523809 wdl: 12 976 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rf1
depth: 22/36 score: +0.06 time: 588 nodes: 312562 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Rac1 Rxc1 Rxc1 Qd6 h4 c5 Qxc5 Qxc5 Rxc5
depth: 21/33 score: +0.00 time: 424 nodes: 228217 wdl: 12 976 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Qa6 Rc5 Rfc1 Qg5 Rxc5 Qxc5 Qd3 Kg7
depth: 20/32 score: +0.09 time: 323 nodes: 171197 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Qa6 Rc2 Qd3 Rcb2 Qc3 c5 Rfc1 R2b4
depth: 19/25 score: +0.10 time: 218 nodes: 112823 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1 Rxc1+ Rxc1 Qf8 Qxf8+ Kxf8
depth: 18/35 score: +0.10 time: 198 nodes: 107111 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1
depth: 17/33 score: +0.03 time: 125 nodes: 80006 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rac1 Rxc1 Rxc1 Qf8 Qxf8+ Kxf8 h4 Rc8 Bb7 Rd8 Rxc7
depth: 16/32 score: +0.02 time: 82 nodes: 59745 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1 Rxc1+ Qxc1 Qe7 Qc6 Rc8 Re1 Qb4
depth: 15/24 score: +0.01 time: 53 nodes: 40433 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Rfd1 Bxd5 Rxd5 Qc6 Qxa5 Rc1+ Rd1 Rxd1+ Rxd1 Qc2 Qa1 Qxb3
depth: 14/20 score: +0.01 time: 42 nodes: 31787 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Rfd1 Bxd5 Rxd5 Qc6 Qxa5 Rc1+ Rd1 Rxd1+ Rxd1
depth: 13/22 score: +0.00 time: 30 nodes: 23866 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Re1 Qd8 Qb5 Be6 b4 axb4 Qxb4
depth: 12/18 score: +0.05 time: 20 nodes: 15636 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5
depth: 11/16 score: +0.05 time: 15 nodes: 11182 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5
depth: 10/16 score: +0.05 time: 9 nodes: 6781 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5
depth: 9/14 score: +0.01 time: 5 nodes: 3726 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Re1 Kg7
depth: 8/11 score: +0.08 time: 2 nodes: 1206 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Qb5 Bxb7 Rc2 Qxc2
depth: 7/7 score: +0.01 time: 2 nodes: 705 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7
depth: 6/6 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 300 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6
depth: 5/5 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 230 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3
depth: 4/4 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 170 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2
depth: 3/3 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 120 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5
depth: 2/2 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 77 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5
depth: 1/1 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 37 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3

Best move: b3
And it found it on depth of one.
So the answer is NO.
What makes sense is having more candidate moves if you don't want to play b3 ...

FEN: r2rq1k1/1pp2ppp/8/p4b2/n7/1P2P3/3BBPPP/R1Q2RK1 b - - 0 20 hashfull: 3%, ponderhits: 71%, wdl: 14 975 11, currmove: h4 depth: 31/42 score: +0.03 time: 10002 nodes: 5112925 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd3 Rxa5 Rxb3 Kh2 Rb7 Ra8+ Kg7 Rc8 Rb2 f3 Rc2 h5 c5 Kg3 c4 hxg6 hxg6 depth: 30/40 score: +0.03 time: 7185 nodes: 3735167 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd3 Rxa5 Rxb3 Kh2 Rb7 Ra8+ Kg7 Rc8 Rb2 f3 Rc2 h5 c5 Kg3 c4 hxg6 hxg6 depth: 29/43 score: +0.04 time: 5401 nodes: 2794733 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 h4 Rd5 Rc1 Rh5 g3 Rb5 Rxc6 Rxb3 Ra6 Rb5 Ra8+ Kg7 Ra7 Rf5 Kg2 depth: 28/38 score: +0.01 time: 4748 nodes: 2448402 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxc6 bxc6 f4 Rd5 Rc1 Rb5 Rxc6 Rxb3 Kf2 h5 Ra6 Rb5 Ra7 Kg7 Kg3 Kf8 depth: 27/34 score: +0.04 time: 3205 nodes: 1648330 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 Rd3 h4 Rxb3 Bxc6 bxc6 Ra7 Rb5 g3 h5 Kg2 c5 Kf3 depth: 26/34 score: +0.04 time: 2529 nodes: 1310228 wdl: 14 976 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Bc6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 Rd3 b4 Rb3 h3 Bxf3 Ra8+ Kg7 gxf3 Rxb4 Rb8 Rb1+ Kh2 depth: 25/30 score: +0.06 time: 1860 nodes: 963774 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rdc1 Qb2 h3 h5 Qb5 Be6 Rcb1 Qc2 Qa4 Ra7 b4 Qxa4 Rxa4 b6 bxa5 bxa5 depth: 24/29 score: +0.04 time: 1368 nodes: 699870 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rdc1 Qb2 h3 h5 Qb5 Be6 Rab1 Qa3 Rc5 Rd2 Qxb7 Qxc5 Qxa8+ Kg7 depth: 23/38 score: +0.00 time: 1024 nodes: 523809 wdl: 12 976 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Rf1 depth: 22/36 score: +0.06 time: 588 nodes: 312562 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Rac1 Rxc1 Rxc1 Qd6 h4 c5 Qxc5 Qxc5 Rxc5 depth: 21/33 score: +0.00 time: 424 nodes: 228217 wdl: 12 976 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Qa6 Rc5 Rfc1 Qg5 Rxc5 Qxc5 Qd3 Kg7 depth: 20/32 score: +0.09 time: 323 nodes: 171197 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 c6 Bc4 Be6 Qxa5 Bxc4 bxc4 Rxc4 h3 Qe7 Qa6 Rc2 Qd3 Rcb2 Qc3 c5 Rfc1 R2b4 depth: 19/25 score: +0.10 time: 218 nodes: 112823 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1 Rxc1+ Rxc1 Qf8 Qxf8+ Kxf8 depth: 18/35 score: +0.10 time: 198 nodes: 107111 wdl: 17 974 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1 depth: 17/33 score: +0.03 time: 125 nodes: 80006 wdl: 14 975 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rac1 Rxc1 Rxc1 Qf8 Qxf8+ Kxf8 h4 Rc8 Bb7 Rd8 Rxc7 depth: 16/32 score: +0.02 time: 82 nodes: 59745 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Be4 Rxb3 Qxa5 Rc4 Bf3 Rb5 Qa3 Rb8 Rfc1 Rxc1+ Qxc1 Qe7 Qc6 Rc8 Re1 Qb4 depth: 15/24 score: +0.01 time: 53 nodes: 40433 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Rfd1 Bxd5 Rxd5 Qc6 Qxa5 Rc1+ Rd1 Rxd1+ Rxd1 Qc2 Qa1 Qxb3 depth: 14/20 score: +0.01 time: 42 nodes: 31787 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Bxb7 Rc2 Qa3 Rb8 Bd5 Be6 Rfd1 Bxd5 Rxd5 Qc6 Qxa5 Rc1+ Rd1 Rxd1+ Rxd1 depth: 13/22 score: +0.00 time: 30 nodes: 23866 wdl: 13 975 12 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Re1 Qd8 Qb5 Be6 b4 axb4 Qxb4 depth: 12/18 score: +0.05 time: 20 nodes: 15636 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 depth: 11/16 score: +0.05 time: 15 nodes: 11182 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 depth: 10/16 score: +0.05 time: 9 nodes: 6781 wdl: 15 975 10 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Rc8 Rxd7 Bxd7 Qd4 Be6 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Rxa5 depth: 9/14 score: +0.01 time: 5 nodes: 3726 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Rd7 Qc5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qf6 Re1 Kg7 depth: 8/11 score: +0.08 time: 2 nodes: 1206 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 Qb5 Bxb7 Rc2 Qxc2 depth: 7/7 score: +0.01 time: 2 nodes: 705 wdl: 13 976 11 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 Qxc7 depth: 6/6 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 300 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 g6 depth: 5/5 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 230 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 Bf3 depth: 4/4 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 170 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 Rxd2 depth: 3/3 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 120 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 Qxc5 depth: 2/2 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 77 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Nc5 depth: 1/1 score: +0.08 time: 1 nodes: 37 wdl: 16 975 9 pv: b3 Best move: b3 And it found it on depth of one. So the answer is NO. What makes sense is having more candidate moves if you don't want to play b3 ...

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.