Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:05:18 08/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
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 No thanks i'll take that cpu time for the normal multiprocessed search :) >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. Well that mate in 8 DIEP sees at ply==1 with a few nodes, so actually a mate searcher in the background is a waste of system time anyway :)
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.