Author: leonid
Date: 15:36:32 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 18:23:49, Heiner Marxen wrote: >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! Thanks. Expect to do this with new system rewriting. >(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()".) Until now I never read any description of any mate solver but I should do. Main problem is the free time and absence of Assembler written programs. I used to do everything only on Assembler. I like it too much to switch to something different. Expect even this week-end to go back to my mate solver. Recently I used one idea that worked in other part of my chess program, after mate solver. I want to try next idea from the same part of my program. I like very much be with my mate solver code. It is 100% based on logic! Salut, Leonid. >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.