Author: leonid
Date: 14:23:36 03/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2000 at 22:48:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On March 08, 2000 at 21:50:55, leonid wrote: > >>or can't say in the way that it could sound familiar. It is very nice that you >>indicated me this point. Even if I listen what people speak in this place I do >>my writing completely alone. Some entirely wrong or new decisions are possible. > >I admire you for writing your program on your own. But don't you think there's a >point when you should at least try some of this stuff that's known to be good? What is "well knows and the best method" is the most obscure place in chess programming. I see this from my own experiece. Already many parts in my game I rewrote radically without having necessary radical change in game speed. In few instances some methods were rejected only because complication in the code was not well balanced by new speed in the game. And how find some free time? Already for four years I want to come back to my mate solver and speed it even more but have no time for this. If one day I will be lucky enough to stay only with my game... >>Mate solving logic (default level) even make double search. First 6 plies deep >>brute force, and second mixed brute force and through speedy logic 14 plies >>deep. All the time that mate solving logic think on the 400Mhz it represent less >>that 0.055 sec. Since the speediest "positional logic" can see 6 plies by brute >>force only in 1 or 2 seconds, 0.055 spent by two search in "mate solving logic" >>is not that much. > >Maybe not. But for more than 90% (or whatever) of the time, it's still >absolutely and totally worthless. Besides, my normal search is perfectly capable >of finding mates anyway. Tom, "quick logic" for soving the mate containg position is beyond everything that can other logic provide. Beside its great use at the end of the game, it is possible to find with it new fantastic mate containing positions in one minute. Just depose on the chess board any heavy position that look like containing mate. Never mind number of queens, rooks and so on. This logic is never allergic to heavy work. Ask it do the search for mate. Response will come in the split of the second. Later you can only find exact number of move that lead to the mate by using brute force search. Leonid. >-Tom
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.