Author: blass uri
Date: 14:23:27 05/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2000 at 17:05:38, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On May 22, 2000 at 19:01:38, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On May 22, 2000 at 15:52:20, Daniel Chancey wrote: >> >>>I agree that Chessmaster is #1 in finding solutions. If someone could hold a >>>checkmating contest (The organizers set up positons in which mate can be forced >>>in a number of moves in the middlegame) Chessmaster might be on top. >>> >>>If anyone knows who's the best in 5 min, 15, 30, 60, and 40/120 times in >>>Chessmaster, tell me. If not, I'm on it. >> >>Chest would slaughter them. > >Sorry to disappoint you, but: no, Chest will not slaughter them here, >since finding *some* forced mate is a quite different job, >than what Chest normally does. > >To find that there is no mate in 8, Chest on a PIII/550 with 500MB cache >already burns over 20 minutes for the first of the three positions, >and 48 minutes for the third. > >I have plans to introduce a sort of mate finder mode (what leonid >calls "quick logic"), where the attacker is restricted to only >perform checking moves, except for say one quiet move. I do not think that the attacker perform only checks move except one in the examples that I posted. I think that you should let the attacker to do something more general then checking moves execpt one case to solve the problems(I think that you should let the attacker to play "quiet" moves that threat mate in 1 or mate in 2) >Such a job will be much quicker, of course. >In *that* mode, Chest probably slaughters them, but that remains >to be seen. The challnage is to be faster than chessmaster(My experience is that other programs are clearly slower than chessmaster in the positions that I posted and they may be 100 times slower and not only 2 or 3 times slower). Uri
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.