Author: chandler yergin
Date: 10:08:43 01/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2005 at 11:01:07, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >Zappa is not much of a mate solver, but these are both pretty simple. > >[D]1b3rk1/pp4pp/2p3n1/1P1p4/P2P2q1/R4NPb/3NBK2/3QR3 b - - > >1... Qg4xd4 2. Ra3-e3 Bb8xg3 3. Kf2-g1 Qd4xe3 4. Kg1-h1 Bh3-g2 5. Kh1xg2 Qe3-f2 >6. Kg2-h1 Rf8-f5 7. Be2-f1 Rf5-h5 8. Bf1-h3 Rh5xh3 9. Nf3-h2 Qf2xh2 > = (MAT9) Depth: 9/29 00:00:02.46 562kN (229 KN/s, 0 splits, 0 aborts) > >[D]1b3rk1/pp4pp/2p3n1/1Pqp4/P2P4/R4NPb/3NBK2/3QR3 b - - > >1... Qc5xd4 2. Ra3-e3 Bb8xg3 3. Kf2-g1 Qd4xe3 4. Kg1-h1 Bh3-g2 5. Kh1xg2 Qe3-f2 >6. Kg2-h1 Rf8-f5 7. Be2-f1 Rf5-h5 8. Bf1-h3 Rh5xh3 9. Nf3-h2 Qf2xh2 > = (MAT9) Depth: 9/27 00:00:01.21 239kN (197 KN/s, 0 splits, 0 aborts) > >Considering that the PVs are the same, I wonder why the 1st one took longer (I >cleared the hash table in between runs). > >anthony Check the Depth.. the First had 29 possible positions; the second.. only 27
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.