Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 01:36:19 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 04:34:26, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On November 20, 2005 at 22:42:02, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>All find mate -- some do it instantly, but none take over 20 seconds... >> >>Now let's use Fruit 2.2.1 in the same conditions (no egtb): >> >>8/2k5/8/3R4/8/8/5K2/8 w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Fruit 2.2.1: >> >>1.Ke3 >> +- (5.45) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >>1.Ke3 Kc6 >> +- (5.57) Depth: 2/2 00:00:00 >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Ke4 >> +- (5.45) Depth: 3/4 00:00:00 >>1.Kg3 Kb7 2.Kf4 >> +- (5.55) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00 >>1.Kg3 Kb7 2.Kf4 Kc6 >> +- (5.58) Depth: 4/6 00:00:00 >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Ke4 Kc7 >> +- (5.76) Depth: 4/6 00:00:00 >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Ke4 Kc7 3.Rc5+ Kd6 >> +- (5.57) Depth: 5/8 00:00:00 >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Rc5 Kb7 >> +- (5.85) Depth: 6/10 00:00:00 13kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Rd6+ Kb5 4.Rg6 Kb4 5.Rb6+ Ka4 >> +- (5.89) Depth: 7/11 00:00:00 58kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Rd6+ Kb5 4.Rg6 Kb4 5.Rb6+ Ka5 >> +- (5.89) Depth: 8/13 00:00:01 238kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Rd7 Kb5 4.Rd6 Kb4 5.Rb6+ Ka5 >> +- (5.89) Depth: 9/14 00:00:01 972kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Ke5 Kc7 4.Rc5+ Kd7 5.Rc1 Ke7 6.Rc7+ Kd8 >> +- (6.25) Depth: 10/18 00:00:01 3671kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Ke5 Kc7 4.Rb5 Kd7 5.Rc5 Ke7 6.Rc7+ Kd8 >> +- (6.25) Depth: 11/19 00:00:05 13571kN >>1.Rh5 Kd6 2.Ke3 Ke6 3.Kd4 Kd6 4.Rh6+ Ke7 5.Rc6 Ke8 6.Rc7 Kd8 >> +- (6.26) Depth: 11/20 00:00:18 48869kN >>1.Rh5 Kd6 2.Ke2 Kd7 3.Kd3 Kc6 4.Rh6+ Kc7 5.Rg6 Kb8 6.Rg7 Kc8 7.Kd4 >> +- (6.14) Depth: 12/20 00:00:28 77398kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Ke4 Kc7 3.Ke5 Kc6 4.Ke6 Kc7 5.Rd6 Kc8 6.Rd7 Kb8 >> +- (6.33) Depth: 12/20 00:00:30 83851kN >>1.Ke3 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kb6 3.Rc5 Kb7 4.Ke5 Ka7 5.Rc6 Kb8 6.Rc4 Ka8 7.Rc7 >> +- (6.45) Depth: 13/22 00:01:43 279150kN >> >> >>Analysis stopped after 10 minutes -- all analysis on an A64 @ 2.7GHz with 512MB >>hash (except CT 14 due to hash size control limitations.) >> >>Please -- will the die-hard "EGTB files are a waste" believers please stand-up. >> >>Regards, >> >>Enrico. > >Deph 13 in 1:43 min in an endgame is indeed a bit hard to believe. >Smells like bug. > >A similar behaviour has been reported previously. I think it seems to occur >whether EGTB are on or off, if they are on the EGTB are suddenly not accessed >anymore in a subsequent analysis with very slow search. > > >regards >Andy Greetings. Yes, I missed that earlier thread (perhaps weeks ago?) and we discovered that the hash wasn't clearing further below (at least that is the best guess to explain it.) Regards, -elc.
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.