Author: leonid
Date: 20:12:08 02/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2002 at 18:38:25, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On February 02, 2002 at 15:50:43, leonid wrote: > >>On February 02, 2002 at 14:54:05, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2002 at 09:24:40, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2002 at 02:44:18, Mike Hood wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Probably, every chess program should have one mate solver chained to its search >>>>for needed move. First work must be done by mate solver and only when mate not >>>>found, second part should be activated. Mate solver must look (my guess) 6 ply >>>>deep by brute force and later (if first search failed) 14 ply by selective. All >>>>search by mate solver must take 0.05 sec, or even less. So, enough time for >>>>second part of chess program to look for needed move, if mate is not found. >>>> >>>>By seeing efficency of brute force search done by Heiner's mate solver and speed >>>>of actual chips, I think that 4 move brute force search (before each move) is >>>>possible. Second selective search for mate could easily go as far as 8 moves. >>>>This way 1 move mate blunder will be impossible for ever in every program. >>>> >>>>Usually mate, in average game, is only between 2 and 5 moves deep. >>>> >>>>Leonid. >>>> >>>Hiarcs played the move becuase of a bug. Without the bug it would >>>have seen it of course. If it had a mate solver (btw, I don't believe >>>in using time for finding mates that in most cases the >>>ordinary search can find) there would be more code that could >>>be buggy :) >> >>Mate solver is, probably, the only part of chess program that can be perfect. >>Reason for this is clear winner move for mate position, or sure absence of it. >>This help in spotting all bugs in early stage of mate solver creation. Presence >>of perfect mate solver, inside of chess program, give to its chess program one >>additional chance to be bug free. > >Additional? :) > >N(total bugs) =N(bugs in ordinary search) + N(bugs in mate solver) > >Since > >N(bugs in mate solver) >= 0 > >we have > >N(total bugs) >= N(bugs in ordinary search) > >QED (just teasing you... :) > >I haven's written a mate solver, so I don't understand what you >can find in 0.05s ? The only time it will help you is when you >actually find a mate. How many positions can there be (relatively >speaking) where a mate solver finds a mate in 0.05s but an ordinary >program can't find the mate or another winning move during the >ordinary search time (which I expect to be much longer) ? Never mind position in your game, usually efficent mate solver take only 0.05 sec, or less to verify each move for mate. Since mate solver have enough time to look 3, or 4 moves by brute force, it is only mate in 5 moves that is under the question. Selective search 7 moves deep will find, anyway, biggest part of those 5 moves brute force in no time. >Sure, if the time spent is 0.05s then it can't hurt but I expect >the increase in playing strength would be microscopic. Probably you are right. The only sure advantage is that no missing mate will be ever lost in any game. Leonid. >Ralf > >I am surprised that until now all chess >>programs were done otherwise. >> >>Leonid. >> >> >> >>>Ralf
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.