Author: blass uri
Date: 23:12:32 06/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 19:02:51, Ed Schröder wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 13:22:31, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 19, 2000 at 11:47:12, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2000 at 04:45:33, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On June 19, 2000 at 03:03:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 19:46:03, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 18:21:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 16:34:16, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 12:00:08, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 10:36:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 18, 2000 at 10:17:08, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>According Rebel it is a mate in 10. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>00:00 07.00 0.81 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Rxh5 Kf8 3.Rxh7 Ke8 4.Rh8+ Kd7 5.Qf5+ Kc7 >>>>>>>>>>>00:01 08.00 2.37 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Rxh5 Kf8 3.Rxh7 Ke8 4.Qf5 Kd8 5.Qxf7 Kc8 >>>>>>>>>>>6.Qxe7 >>>>>>>>>>>00:03 09.00 2.47 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Rxh5 Kf8 3.Rxh7 Ke8 4.Qf5 Kd8+ 5.Qxf7 Kc7 >>>>>>>>>>>6.Qxe7+ Kc8 >>>>>>>>>>>00:43 10.00 11.74 1.Rxh5 gxh5 2.Rxh5 Kf8 3.Rxh7 e6 4.Bf6 Ke8 5.dxe6 Qxc4+ >>>>>>>>>>>6.Qxc4 >>>>>>>>>>>02:35 11.00 Mate in 10 moves 1.Rxh5 Kf8 Rxh7 2.Ke8 Rxf7 3.Qxc4 Qxc4 4.g5 Rhh7 >>>>>>>>>>>5.b5 Rxe7+ 6.Kd8 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I find it interesting to notice that even Rebel has some trouble with this, >>>>>>>>>>taking more than 10 times as much time to resolve the 10th ply. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's pretty normal whith such big score differences (2.47 -> 11.74) as >>>>>>>>>search is confrontated with big score fluctuations which causes move >>>>>>>>>ordering to collapse. I wouldn't bother too much about it, it's quite >>>>>>>>>normal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not for all programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Chessmaster6000(ss=10) can see a forced mate in only 4 seconds and does not have >>>>>>>>a big branching factor >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sure. Maybe not in this position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is normal for chessmaster to see mates clearly faster than other programs >>>>>>>>and I think that this is because the other programs do some mistakes in their >>>>>>>>search rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nope. Johan has special (mate) stuff in his search no program has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>Just curious... why don't you add it to Rebel too? :-) >>>>> >>>>>a) because I don't know "exactly" what it is; >>>>>b) too much emphasis on mates loses too much elo points in games. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>I think reason a is the right reason because I do not think that chessmaster >>>>loses too much elo points in games(chessmaster6000 is one of the top programs >>>>and is only one point behind Fritz5.32 in the ssdf list inspite of having no >>>>learning function and having an older engine) >>>> >>>>I believe that having special mate stuff is productive for chess programs if you >>>>do it in the right way. >>> >>>The right way? Now tell me what that is... You might ask yourself the >>>question if such a thing exist in computer chess. >>> >>>Finding deep mates requires extensions. Extensions mean a higher branch >>>factor. A higher branch factor means a lower search depth. A lower search >>>depth means a lower elo. >> >>The right way is to do it almost without a lower search depth. >>In order to do it you need to do the extensions only in the right places so when >>there is no mate danger you will not have lower search depth. > >The right way to do it ussue again. Ever tried to do it yourself? >If not try it yourself and let's talk again 4-5 years later. I did not say that it is easy to do it. > > >>You can also decide to have a time limit for searching with the extensions(for >>example 1/10 of the time per move). > >Tried it? No I did not say it is easy to do it but only that I believe that it is possible. I guess that there are more important things for you to do in the near future. > >It's no good. In fact it is a non working idea. When you for instance >find something interesting in the first part with many extensions you >will lose it as soon as you go back to normal search. Now that looks >real silly for a chess program that after (say) ply 5 finds a nice >tactical shot and then fails low on the 6th ply and then finds the >combination back on ply 9 or 10. This was not what I meant. I did not think to forget about what you found. Of course if you find something intersting(a fail high or a fail low) there is no reason to forget it and you can choose between only avoid doing extensions in nodes that you did not search and if there is a problem with doing it to continue with the extensions. If you do not find something interesting you can forget about the extensions. I think that it may be better in a correpondence game to use chessmaster for 1/10 of the time when I suspect that there may be a mate danger and if chessmaster does not see something interesting to use another program for 9/10 of the time. I believe that it is better than to use only the other program. If I am right then the other program could be better if it knew to do the same 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.