Author: Pete Galati
Date: 08:20:18 01/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2001 at 05:31:09, Paul wrote: >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! Thanks, I think you found both my problems. I did notice that after a certain epd it didn't agree with ANY of Pretz's results. > >>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. Yeah, mate in 18 and yet it found c6d6 in 0 seconds? I wonder if this was related to my editing mistake. > >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 I don't know, Comet's not a stump puller, at least not on my computer. I'll have to try to run those in Crafty. I wonder if I can get 96mb hashtables using a Dos Crafty or if cwsdpmi would blow a gasket trying that. Pete
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.