Author: leonid
Date: 09:35:16 08/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2000 at 10:16:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 27, 2000 at 09:51:00, Aaron Tay wrote: > >>On August 27, 2000 at 09:13:38, Daniel Chancey wrote: >> >>>Without tablebases, The King search engine in Chessmaster 6000 is one of the >>>best programs to find mate (e.g. the 10+ mate found in game vs Crafty(C)) >>> >>>If there is a World Computer mate finder championship tournament, I have my >vote on the King. >> >>Are we talking about speed in solving? Or correct solution? Some programs i >>think are happy with the first forced mate they find, regardless of whether it's >>the shortest >> >>Either way, anyone think Deep blue would be strongest in this area? > >We are talking about speed in solving. >The solution must lead to mate but not to the shortest mate. > >I think it is better not to discuss about Deep blue because this discussion is >not productive. > >It is better to discuss about programs that we have. > >Uri When I did my statistics about solving the mates by brute force and by selective search, my mate solver was best. Could never confime this by some independent trial. Did my statistics around 4 years ago. Tried positions by thousands from different sources. I used mainly: Wchess, Genius 2, Chessmaster 4000. Other best programs of that time I could not use. They simply fail to respond. Probably solving the mate was secondery for them. My mate solver (or maybe correct name is mate finder) is part of mine not finished chess program LLchess. It don't use any hash tables in it. Expect to go back to this part as soon as speed of my second part will reach speed of mate solver. Mate solver is something that is highly negligeable. But when you write it, you go into the most logical and exiting part of chess programming! Leonid.
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.