Author: leonid
Date: 12:49:27 05/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2001 at 12:25:13, Ingo Bauer wrote: >Hello > >>Hi, Ingo! Don't worry if your program don't find mate in very short time. Mine >>was not brilliant in this position at all. I don't know exact minimal number of moves that lead to mate. Expect that somebody will find it for me. My brute >>force search was deadly slow to find it on my own. Only good hash could make >>sensible difference. > >What do you mean by "good Hash"? I used 256 MB of Hash for this one. And its >really a pitty that no a single programm of all i test is my one. My mate solver don't have any hash right now. Expect to write it only when I will rewrite everything for Linux. >But i have a question. How do you "create" all this positions? Because you write >that you don't know the exact depth but you seem to know that there is a mate in >an acceptable distance? All my positions I create after my own fantasy on my mate solver. Usually, selective search permit very quickly draw mate position where mate exist for sure. Only to find mate in shortest number of moves, position must be searched by brute force. Brute force - perfect search that never miss the mate. Solver that use hash table can reduce considerably time of search in heavy position. Heavy position - position with big branching factor. Leonid. >Ingo
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.