Author: Paul
Date: 02:31:09 01/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2001 at 01:46:36, Pete Galati wrote: >>Ok, here it is re-edited, with best moves according to Pretz, and I think I >>relabled their ID's a little. >> >>Just before I hit the sack, I have a batch file for Comet to run these all at 30 >>minutes. Oh crap, my calculator just said that might take 7 hours, it must need >>new batteries. :) >>3r1r1k/1b4pp/ppn1p3/4Pp1R/Pn5P/3P4/4QP2/1qB1NKR1 w - - bm Rxh7+; id "01"; >>1kbr3r/pp6/8/P1n2ppq/2N3n1/R3Q1P1/3B1P2/2R2BK1 w - - bm Qf4+; id "02"; >>8/7n/7P/8/6nK/5k2/8/8 b - - bm Ngf6; id "03"; >>rnbq1b1r/p1pp1p1p/4k3/1p1NP1p1/2QP1p2/5N2/PP1B1KPP/n6R w - - bm Nxg5+; id "04"; >>4r1k1/rp2Bppp/p1b5/1q2Q3/R7/1P5P/P4PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxg7+; id "05"; >>r1b2rk1/4bppp/p2p3P/q1n1p1P1/1p1QPP2/1BN1B3/PPP5/2KR3R w - - bm Nd5; id "06"; >>N7/PPPPPPPP/K1k3rB/b1pnnb1p/8/1r6/pp3p2/7q w - - bm b8=N+; id "07"; >>7k/2p4P/1p2p2K/2P5/8/8/4PP2/8 w - - bm cxb6; id "08"; >>rnb1r2k/pp2NR1p/6p1/2p1b1B1/2P5/8/q3B1PP/1R1Q2K1 w - - bm Qd6; id "09"; >>r1br4/1p2npkp/3Bpbp1/pqp5/2N1R3/1P1P1QP1/1PP2PBP/R5K1 w - - bm Qxf6+; id "10"; >>3B4/7p/6pP/6Pk/1pR4p/3K1b1P/1P3p2/5B2 w - - bm Re4; id "11"; >>8/8/8/8/8/1QKp4/pp2bN2/b1k5 w - - bm Qd1+; id "11"; >>4k3/8/4K3/8/4N3/4B3/3P1P2/8 w - - bm Bc5; id "12"; >>8/8/2Rp4/B7/5K2/3k4/8/3B4 w - - bm Bc3; id "13" >>8/4K3/4N3/8/4kP2/1P2n2P/4Q3/8 w - - bm Ke8; id "14"; > >For some reason I can't explain, Comet didn't print a result for position 14 >into it's ".out" file, unfortunately, I forgot to turn on the log. I think Comet >flat out didn't see position 14. There's a missing ';' at the end of line "13", or rather there's not? And the numbering is a bit off after line "10", but it *was* late! >A lot of these it appears that Comet aggreed with Pretz. Some it disagreed but >seemed to have a mate in site anyhow. I gave up a little bit of tablebase in >exchange for using tablebases this time. > >Pete > > Datei: mate Tue Jan 23 22:05:37 2001 > >01: score: +0.13 Nodes/Sec: 61357 [14] h5h7 in 0:00 [4] >02: score: +M11 Nodes/Sec: 288538 [11] e3f4 in 0:00 [6] >03: score: +M10 Nodes/Sec: 254333 [15] g4f6 in 3:08 [15] >04: score: +M11 Nodes/Sec: 303816 [04] f3g5 in 0:01 [4] >05: score: +M10 Nodes/Sec: 343451 [13] e5g7 in 0:21 [9] >06: score: -0.16 Nodes/Sec: 268066 [13] c3d5 in 4:04 [11] >07: score: +M8 Nodes/Sec: 203140 [05] b7b8/S in 0:01 [4] >08: score: +3.98 Nodes/Sec: 83776 [11] c5b6 in 0:00 [5] >09: score: +16.18 Nodes/Sec: 71719 [11] d1d6 in 3:55 [9] >10: score: +M7 Nodes/Sec: 237556 [10] f3f6 in 0:49 [8] >11: score: +M7 Nodes/Sec: 200821 [12] d3e3 in 0:00 [5] >11: score: +M6 Nodes/Sec: 179272 [08] b3d1 in 0:01 [8] >12: score: +M7 Nodes/Sec: 236939 [10] e4d6 in 0:40 [10] >13: score: +M18 Nodes/Sec: 3248 [02] c6d6 in 0:00 [0] Well, 01 is really deep, takes mine about 8' to find the mate. That it finds 07 and fast is really good! Minor promo and all! 08 is pretty easy but it just ran too short? 09 is pretty heavy, so a little more time and it would solve the mate. Some of the mates are too high, but that happens with mate problems. The last one is especially funny, M18 for a M4 problem :) You'll have too use a matesolver to get those correct. Ok, so the conclusion is that most of these are too easy for nowadays programs ... will see if I can dig up some mate in 10-30 ones ;) Paul
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.