Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: One mate to solve for fittest programs (solution)

Author: leonid

Date: 15:35:08 05/05/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 05, 2001 at 12:08:53, Heiner Marxen wrote:

>On May 04, 2001 at 17:09:35, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>
>>On May 04, 2001 at 16:05:36, leonid wrote:
>>
>>>On May 04, 2001 at 15:38:23, Angrim wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 04, 2001 at 10:26:02, leonid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>>Had bad lack this midnight when one call came from my work. It took me 20
>>>>>minutes to do it but I went to my bed only at 2 o'clock. One good result from
>>>>>broken sleep was this position that you can try to solve. It probably will
>>>>>demand one sleepless night from your program, if you will insist on shortest
>>>>>mate.
>>>>>
>>>>>[D]RnqkqnR1/qBNbNBq1/QqQqQqQ1/BrQqQrB1/3q4/8/3Q4/3K4 w- -
>>>>>
>>>>>Please indicate your result.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>
>>>>this one IS tough,
>>
>>Chest agrees: there is no mate in 12, as found in 2.1 hours (K7/600, 350MB).
>>
>>>> wonder if having endgame tables would help a lot?
>>>
>>>Never!
>>
>>:-) :-)
>>
>>There are 16+15 = 31 men on the board.  A mate in 12 is 23 plies deep,
>>so we are left with 31-23 = 8 men at least for a terminal position in
>>such a search.  You have to go some moves deeper before there is a chance
>>that 6-piece tables may help.
>>
>>
>>>>I'll leave my proof number searcher running while I'm at work, maybe it
>>>>will find an answer in a few hours.. currently its obsessing over Qxd7.
>>>
>>>Everything depend on each program branching factor. Two professional that I
>>>tried until now (they are not specialized in solving mate nut never hung on you)
>>>were slow. The every next program could have very good branching factor for this
>>>position. I had the chance to see very good on mine, mainly for brute  force.
>>>Selective was slow. It took this in 10 min 42 sec. Celeron 600Mhz. No hash.
>>>
>>>Leonid.
>
>Chest has just completed depth=13.  There are two key moves for the mate
>in 13: Qexd7+ and Qcxd7+.  Here are the PVs:
>
>Qcxd7+ Qexd7 Rxf8+ Qxf8   Qxd7+  Qcxd7  Ne6+   Q5xe6  Bxb6+  Rxb6  Qaxb6+ Qaxb6
>Rxb8+  Qxb8  Nc6+   Qbxc6 Qgxf6+ Rxf6 Qxb8+  Qcc8  Qxf8+  Qde8 Qxd4+  Qd7  Bxf6#
>
>Qexd7+ Qcxd7 Ne6+  Kxe7   Nxd4+  Rxe5   Bxf6+  Qxf6   Qxf6+  Kxf6  Qh6+   Ke7
>Qxd7+  Nfxd7 Rxe8+  Kxf7  Bxd5+  Rxd5 Re7+   Kxe7  Qg7+   Ke8  Qcc8+  Qd8  Qxd8#
>
>On K7/600 (350 MB hash) it took 11.7 hours to find both key moves, and 15.3
>hours total time to also print a solution tree containing the above PVs.
>
>
>>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
> # 13  41979.42  3.21  233216096- 224468195
>
>>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
> depth 12->13: 5.480
>
>>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.
>>
>>>>proven that lots of the other moves lose already though.
>>>>proved that 26 of the other moves lose after 10 minutes search..
>>>>
>>>>Angrim
>>
>>Yes, for (nearly) all partial mate-in-3 Chest tried to mate the attacker
>>directly in 1 move, which succeeded in 16.2% of the cases.  A more
>>sophisticated heuristic might succeed in many more cases.
>>
>>Now, Leonid, should I go on?  Depth 13 and 14 will take around 9 hours
>>and 1.5 days!  What is your shortest (selective) solution?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Heiner
>
>My estimates above were even a bit low.  This mate problem was definitely
>a heavy one.  But I'm sure, you will not run out of such problems, Leonid :-)

Thanks, Heiner, for two solutions! Since position is symmetrical I expected that
it could be so. Mainly when for simplified version for it, I and one other man
came with second mirror solution.

Actually, I even thought that, maybe, I must be not afraid to put here my highly
artificial mates. Today I tried to soften "bad impression" by putting one
"natural" on the Web. I personally like tough one. Esthetically they make me
think about cartoons and action movies that I enjoy. From practical point of
view, they make all bugs sparkling with revealing, hellish fire.

Happy weekend for you as well!
Leonid.

>Happy weekend!
>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.