Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: If you like to solve real mate...

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 16:12:24 01/27/01

Go up one level in this thread

On January 27, 2001 at 17:43:29, leonid wrote:

>On January 27, 2001 at 14:07:07, Tony Werten wrote:
>>On January 27, 2001 at 11:09:10, leonid wrote:
>>>On January 27, 2001 at 09:10:05, Tony Werten wrote:
>>>>On January 27, 2001 at 08:53:07, leonid wrote:
>>>>>If you like to solve forced mate position from real game, it is the one.
>>>>>[D]7r/p4R2/1p4nk/3qP3/P1pr4/6PB/2Q4K/5R2 w - -
>>>>>It is from game played in Hollannd in 1975 between Ernsteen and Berchem.
>>>>XiniX solves this one in 1 sec  1. Qxg6+ Kxg6 2. Rf6+  , Kg5 3. Rf5+  , Kg6 4.
>>>>Rf6+  , Kg7 5. Rg5+  , Kh7 6. Bf5+
>>>If you can mention what is this program and on what computer you solved, it will
>>>be appreciate.
>>XiniX is a chessprogram I wrote in Delphi. It finished 10th ( out of 14 ) at the
>>last dutch championship. After the first weekend I was on shared 3rd place, the
>>second weekend disaster stroke.
>Not bad! And how performant, just your own opinion, is program done in Delphi
>compare with the same code written in C?
>I ask this because I have the impression that not that many people use Delphi.
>It is C that is used almost by everybody. I personaly have not idea about Delphi
>at all.

For me it would make a difference. I'm good at Delphi and lousy at C. But a good
pascal programmer and a good c programmer should not make any difference.
It's more the choices you make in the design of your program that make the

I'm not doing bad for a starter but I don't have a clue if my program would have
been better if a would have started in C. If feel comfortable in Pascal so i
guess it's the best choice for me.

I think programming in C goes faster because there are is a lot of example code,
OTOH if you don't have the code, you have to find out a lot for yourself wich
might give you an edge in the long run.

Anyway, I'm having fun with it, and I can only encourage people to play
tournaments. 1.5 Year ago i participated at the dutch chamionship for the first
time and finished last with .5 out of 14.

But I had fun ( My wife didn't:"if you spend so much time on this f***ing
chessprogram, then you'd better win this tournament )

Last year ( after the first weekend I was at 3rd place ) the guy behind the bar
asked me:"You're doing quite alright this year aren't you ?". I said: "yes, why
do you say that ?" He said: "Your wife looks a lot more amused than last year" (
we spend most time at the bar that year before)

Before that I played at the WMCCC and people where saying that I shouldn't have
played there because my program was to weak. Yes, it was, but you have to get
experienced somewere. I don't think this kind of negative reactions really
encourage a new programmer to participate. Which is too bad bad because there
are some nice programs out there. But it's safer to be a salonprogrammer. (
intended as a snear )

I'm really sick about not playing at Paderborn. My program is becoming quite
strong and I was really looking forward at playing at a 933 pentium. ( breaking
500Kn/s ) But it'll have to wait.



>All the best in all your writing and championship!



>>I had a little correction-for-depth-by-checkmates mistake. In the game against
>>Ant I had 3 queens against a pawn but my engine refused to mate, giving me a
>>loss on time ( I forgot to claim a draw ).
>>In another game I oversearched. ( new vocabalary ) I outsearched my opponent by
>>3 ply, went for what should be a pawn win, but when the game arrived there I had
>>an undeffendable pinned knight. I should have searched to 2 ply more or 3 ply
>>less and there wouldn't have been a problem.
>>Machine is an AMD K6-2 333 Mhz
>>>Time is good.
>>>>This way it is easy.
>>>>The position in BT2630 is a couple of moves earlier. ( I never managed to solve
>>>>this one )
>>>>[D] 2b1q3/p7/1p1p2kb/nPpN3p/P1P1P2P/6P1/5R1K/5Q2 w - -
>>>And in how many moves this position expected to be solved?
>>>I tried it by selective search 13 moves deep but, after waiting around 6
>>>minutes, disconnected. In 10 moves selective could find nothing. By brute force
>>>even 5 moves lead me already to 5 minutes search. No mate existe in five.
>>>Thought that maybe it is some 20 moves position that is, anyway, beyond my
>>>actual program.
>>>If somebody would like to solve average positions (not too easy but not too
>>>complicated), below is one.
>>>[D]qn1kbrqn/n1nqn1bp/bN1N1N1N/B1N1Nn1B/N1N1N1N1/8/1R1Q1R2/3K4 w - -
>>>Mate existe for sure in 11 moves. Response was found by selective search and
>>>minimal number of moves is unknown.

This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.