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: >>>> >>>>>Hi! >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Leonid. >>>> >>>>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 difference. 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. cheers, Tony > >All the best in all your writing and championship! Thanks, Tony > >Leonid. > > >>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 >> >>Tony >> >>> >>>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 - - >>>> >>>>Tony >>> >>>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. >>> >>>Leonid.
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.