Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: One mate to solve for fittest programs.

Author: Heiner Marxen

Date: 15:23:49 05/04/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 04, 2001 at 18:00:28, leonid wrote:

>
>>Well, the effective branching factor is quite good for Chest.
>>Here is the timing for the increasing depths:
>>
>>       seconds
>>#  1      0.00  0.87          1-         0
>>#  2      0.00  1.00          1-         0
>>#  3      0.00  0.95         70-         0
>>#  4      0.08  1.07        465-         0
>>#  5      0.37  1.27       2085-         0
>>#  6      1.46  1.57       7901-         0
>>#  7      6.32  2.09      34402-         0
>>#  8     25.78  2.57     141569-         0
>>#  9     87.41  3.28     500658-         0
>># 10    478.70  3.56    2712514-       478
>># 11   1570.93  4.26    8976242-   1058845
>># 12   7659.24  3.73   44489747-  35741846
>>
>>depth  7-> 8: 4.079
>>depth  8-> 9: 3.390
>>depth  9->10: 5.476
>>depth 10->11: 3.281
>>depth 11->12: 4.875
>>
>>It changes a bit up and down, but stays between 3 and 5.5 so far, which
>>is not bad for such a crowded board and 69 initial legal moves.
>>
>>But no cigar, yet.
>
>If you would like to see my number for my brute force search then you can look
>on them. I have the impression that with hash in mine we can actually be very
>close in branching factor. Did we somewhere the same thinking even by doing our
>programs in different countries and by different mind?

Quite possible.  Some time ago I read about your program, what you put
into the web.  I did see a lot of familiar things and did not detect
any great surprises.  So your mate search may be quite comparable
to some earlier version of Chest.

>Celeron 600Mhx. Llchess mate solver. No hash.
>
>4 moves - 0.16 sec
>                    branching factor - 5.81
>5 moves - 0.93 sec.
>                                     - 4.96
>6 moves - 4,61 sec
>                                     - 7.77
>7 moves - 35.82 sec
>                                     - 6.17
>8 moves - 3 min 41 sec
>                                     - 5.42
>9 moves - 19 min 59 sec
>                                     - 6.69
>10 moves - 2 h 6 min 58 sec
>
>Salut,
>Leonid.

Interesting!  Our programs do agree even in the ups and downs, and the
single factors aren't that far apart.  Of course, the differences pile up ;-)

Happy hash table programming!

(You may read "acm.h" and "acm.c" of the Chest sources and how "do_ana()"
 in "analyse.c" calls these functions and uses the result of "acm_search()".)

Heiner



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.