Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CM9 mystery?

Author: Kurt Utzinger

Date: 21:28:52 09/14/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 15, 2002 at 00:19:20, John Merlino wrote:

>On September 14, 2002 at 17:14:41, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>Zugeordnete Felder 1.g4 - Cheron 0724
>>[D]8/8/K6p/6p1/8/8/k5PP/8 w - - 0 1
>>
>>In this position the old TheKing 3.12d under Fritz7-GUI finds the winning move
>>1.g4 within 7s. CM9 with the same amount of hashtables (32 MB) needs 3m7s, but
>>CM9 with only 4 MB hashtables is the fastest with 3s. A real mystery for me, all
>>on P4 1800/512.
>>
>>Analysis by The King 3.12d: Fritz7-GUI (32 MB hash)
>>
>>1.Kb5 Kb2 2.Kc5 Kc2 3.Kd5 Kd2 4.Ke5 Ke2 5.Kf6 g4 6.Kf5 g3 7.hxg3 Kf2 8.g4 Kg3
>>9.Ke4 Kxg2 10.Kf5 Kf3
>>  =  (0.13)   Depth: 3   00:00:00
>>  =  (0.09)   Depth: 20   00:00:04  1512kN
>>1.g4 Kb2 2.Kb6 Kb3 3.Kb5 Kc3 4.Kc5 Kd3 5.Kd5 Ke3 6.Ke5 Kf2 7.Kf6 Kf3 8.Kf5 Ke3
>>9.h3 Kd4 10.Kg6 Ke5 11.Kxh6 Kf6 12.Kh5 Kg7 13.Kxg5
>>  +-  (1.47)   Depth: 20   00:00:07  2232kN
>>  +-  (4.49)   Depth: 24   00:02:49  41876kN
>>
>>(Utzinger, MyTown 14.09.2002)
>>********************************************************************************
>>TheKing 3.23 (CM9 GUI) 32 MB hash
>>
>>Time	Depth	Score	Positions	Moves
>>0:04	17/21	0.08	1772968		1.Kb5 Kb2 2.Kc5 Kc2 3.Kd5 Kd2 4.Ke5
>>					Ke2 5.Kf6 g4 6.Kf5 g3 7.hxg3 Kf2
>>					8.Kf4 Kxg2 9.g4 Kf2 10.Ke4 Kg2
>>					11.Kf5 Kf3
>>0:09	18/22	0.08	2783014		1.Kb5 Kb2 2.Kc5 Kc2 3.Kd5 Kd2 4.Ke5
>>					Ke2 5.Kf6 g4 6.Kf5 g3 7.hxg3 Kf2
>>					8.Kf4 Kxg2 9.g4 Kf2 10.Ke4 Kg2
>>					11.Kf5 Kf3
>>3:07	18/22	2.19	39768632	1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Kf3 7.Kf5 Kg2
>>					8.Kg6 Kf3 9.h3 Kg3 10.Kxh6 Kh4
>>					11.Kg6 Kxh3 12.Kxg5
>>----	----	----	----		----
>>********************************************************************************
>>TheKing 3.23 (CM9 GUI) 4 MB hash
>>
>>Time	Depth	Score	Positions	Moves
>>0:00	12/16	0.10	249552		1.Kb5 Kb3 2.g4 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf3 6.Kf5 Kg2 7.Kg6 Kh3
>>					8.Kh5 Kxh2 9.Kxh6
>>0:00	13/17	0.10	350152		1.Kb5 Kb3 2.g4 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf3 6.Kf5 Kg2 7.Kg6 Kh3
>>					8.Kh5 Kxh2 9.Kxh6
>>0:01	14/18	0.31	587468		1.Kb5 Kb2 2.Kc5 Kc2 3.Kd5 Kd2 4.Ke5
>>					Ke2 5.Kf6 g4 6.Kf5 g3 7.hxg3 Kf2
>>					8.g4 Kxg2 9.Kf4 Kh3
>>0:03	14/18	1.51	960806		1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf3 6.Kf5 Kg2 7.Kg6 Kf3
>>					8.h3 Ke4 9.Kxh6 Kf4 10.Kg6
>>0:04	15/19	1.49	1158272		1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Ke5 9.Kxh6 Kf6 10.Kh5
>>0:47	16/20	2.19	9617559		1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Kg3 9.Kxh6 Kh4 10.Kg6 Kxh3
>>					11.Kxg5
>>0:51	17/21	2.19	10532568	1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Kg3 9.Kxh6 Kh4 10.Kg6 Kxh3
>>					11.Kxg5
>>1:15	18/22	3.48	15574649	1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Ke5 9.Kg7 Ke6 10.Kxh6 Kf6
>>					11.Kh5 Kg7 12.Kxg5
>>1:17	19/23	3.48	16035289	1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Ke5 9.Kg7 Ke6 10.Kxh6 Kf6
>>					11.Kh5 Kg7 12.Kxg5
>>1:20	20/24	3.81	16776827	1.g4 Kb3 2.Kb5 Kc3 3.Kc5 Kd3 4.Kd5
>>					Ke3 5.Ke5 Kf2 6.Kf6 Ke3 7.Kg6 Kf4
>>					8.h3 Ke5 9.Kxh6 Kf6 10.Kh5 Kg7
>>					11.Kxg5 Kf7 12.h4 Kg7 13.Kf5
>>********************************************************************************
>
>Johan was gracious enough to answer my e-mail on a Saturday (although it was
>probably very early on a Sunday for him!). Here is what he said:
>
>--------------
>Basically, the shape of the search tree (hence the size) depends very much on
>"luck". Different programs, different versions, and different settings (even the
>hash table size or k-best mode) may change the "solution time" by a factor 10 or
>100 easily.
>
>Chess programmers are of course not very happy with this behaviour, but the
>average performance (ie scoring points) always goes first. In other words,
>theoretical correctness is always sacrificed in favor of average program speed
>and development time, with every programmer using his favourite trick(s) to keep
>the damage small. Another example of the luck factor can be observed in the
>thread CCC:251808.
>--------------
>
>There you go!
>
>jm

Johan de Koning's explanations sound logical. Nevertheless I have the feeling
that something could be wrong with the way TheKing 3.23 is handling such
positions. I am going to search for further examples.
Regards
Kurt



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.