Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 14:11:14 01/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
At 5 seconds a move on a Pentium 133mhz I get 217 out of 300. Not great, I know. Your result is impressive. What release number of Crafty will this be? On January 12, 1998 at 15:04:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I have just finished cleaning everything up, relative to the null-move >mate extension and hash table refinement discussed here. As a sanity >check, I decided to once again run win at chess at one minute per move >to see how Crafty would do on my Pentium Pro 200. The best for an >"official" version has been 297, with it typically staying around 295 >or so. > >here is the "crosstable" for version 14.4: > > 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 > +------------------------------------------------------------ > 1 | 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 44 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 > 2 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 15 0 > 3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 54 0 0 10 > 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 > 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 > 6 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 7 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 > 8 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 > 9 | 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 57 0 >10 | 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -- 0 0 0 >11 | 0 0 0 14 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 >12 | 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 >13 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 33 >14 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >15 | 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 >16 | 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 >17 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 16 >18 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 >19 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >20 | 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 >incorrect: 163 230 >sum of times(squared)=46689 > >The bottom line is Crafty v14.4 misses two (163 and 230) in one minute >per move. 163 is solved in 1 minute on an alpha/500, but takes just >over a couple of minutes on the P6/200. 230 I don't know about, but I >think it will take longer than that, as on the alpha Crafty still did >not get it last time I tried. > >Other interesting trivia. With a limit of 30 seconds, it misses an >additional 6 on the P6/200, although on the alpha/500 it still gets >these right but does then mist 163. > >So the simple results are: > > time/move 15 30 60 > correct (P6) 287 292 298 > correct (alpha) 294 298 299 > >Which represents the best results I have gotten so far, discounting >Cray Blitz of course. Cray blitz solves 297 of 300 in < 1 second >(as I have mentioned, that program times to the nearest second and >reports times of 0 for 297 of the positions). It takes 1 second (or >a little more, but not 2 seconds) to solve 230, 92 and 222. But this >test was run on a *big* Cray and averaged about 5M nodes per second for >the entire test suite, which burned 32 processors pretty well. :) > >For the two I miss now, 163 is the easier to solve, and simply needs a >bit more speed. Null-move and razoring adversely affect some of these >positions, as I have solved some of them quicker in the past. > >Sorry, but I don't have any times for a PII/300 yet, although we do have >one. My P5/233mmx notebook misses two more, as it is some 15% slower >than my P6/200. > >Any other results to compare with? Be interesting to see who solves >what quickly and who has trouble with what. I'm going to experiment >with the chess middlegame suite Bruce mentioned. The only thing I don't >like is the length of time it takes to run a suite that large...
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.