Author: leonid
Date: 10:07:58 01/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2001 at 12:27:26, Paul wrote: >On January 18, 2001 at 22:06:37, leonid wrote: > >>Position is exact and response 10 moves must be or shortest possible, or very >>close move. Actually my program solved this position through selective search in >>11 moves. Solution was instant. Finding shortest mate is the other story. >>Through brute force program said in 8 mate is not there. Only 9 still could be >>looked. >> >>I found that branching factor was terrible to see 9 moves. AMD 400Mhz. >> >>8 moves - 2h 44 min. >>7 moves - 2 min 48 sec. >>6 moves - 7 sec. >> >>Leonid. > >If you found the solution instantly, that's pretty fast!! ;) Mine took >27 seconds on a P2 400MHz, and that's with special extension settings. 27 seconds is very good for this position. Some time the same program will take position instantly and some time it will think longer. One position don't say that much. Only statistic of many positions do. >But I remember that your move ordering is a little different from what >most of 'us' do. You look at checking moves first, right? Yes. This kind of positioning the checking moves first work well for searching the mate, as for usual chess program. Was very surprised finding that some people do it other way. This ordering came to me after long statistics. If you will try this ordering one day and will be able to compare the numbers, with other move ordering, come here to say what it was. Will be interesting to know somebody else experience. Greeting, Leonid. Anyway, it's >quite impressive, Leonid! > >Groetjes ... >Paul
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.