Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 03:22:00 03/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 22:36:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >How long for your program to solve these on 950 MHz equivalent? >2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.230"; >2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id "WAC.131"; >4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id "WAC.141"; >5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2+; id "WAC.163"; >8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id "WAC.002"; I'll give you my numbers for a PIV 2.4 GHz, and leave to others to translate to a 950 MHz machine. WAC230: My engine can probably search for weeks without solving this one. WAC131: 6 plies, 22600 nodes, 0.20 seconds. WAC141: 6 plies, 18310 nodes, 0.16 seconds. WAC163: 9 plies, 493949 nodes, 2.61 seconds. WAC002: 11 plies, 452799, 1.36 seconds. I agree with Martin that there is no longer any reason to use WAC. The last time I tried the whole suite, Gothmog solved 298/300 at 5 seconds per position (as usual, number 100 and 230 were the unsolved ones). Most other engines probably get similar scores. Except for positions 100 and 230, which are more about eval than about search, all positions are almost trivial. ECMGCP is a much better suite. Tord
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.