Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:49:33 08/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2000 at 18:41:59, Lars Sandin wrote: >On August 16, 2000 at 17:48:20, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On August 16, 2000 at 17:35:44, Jari Huikari wrote: >> >>>On August 16, 2000 at 17:23:33, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>Took 2 seconds to solve the hardest two. The other took one second. The >>>>machine was not a very fast one. On one of the fast machines, it would probably >>>>do a lot better. >>> >>>Was the program searching especially for mates? >> >>Chest 3.19 by Heiner Marxen (the best mate solver on the planet by a landslide). >> >>>How much time would need >>>to find the moves, if these positions were in normal game? >> >>Infinite. It does not play chess, since it's just a mate solver. On the other >>hand, on a multithreading machine, you could have the mate solver buzzing away >>in its own little thread while your chess engine is playing chess in a normal >>fashion. Then, if the mate solver sees something interesting, it could report >>it to the chess engine. It is actually an idea I have been entertaining, and >>incredibly simple to implement. > >How fast (approx.) does the program see longer mate-sequences; for instance in a >normal game - a mate in about 10 moves? Generally speaking, it will find a mate faster than any other program does. On the other hand, if tablebase access can help a normal program, sometimes they will beat chest. To find a mate in ten can be very fast or very slow. The only way to know is to see the actual problem and give it a try. I have been able to solve problems with chest that no other program in my possession would solve in a reasonable period of time. It is especially useful for finding shorter mates, once I know that a checkmate exists.
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.