Author: leonid
Date: 17:30:40 05/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2001 at 15:01:10, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On May 14, 2001 at 13:50:51, leonid wrote: > >>On May 14, 2001 at 12:57:07, Heiner Marxen wrote: >> >>>On May 14, 2001 at 08:47:07, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, Heiner! >>>> >>>>This time one personal demand. Can you send me your mate solver? I tried two >>>>times to do this by going into your site but something I did in a wrong way. >>>> >>>>I use Windows ME. If you have somewhere executive file, it will be the best. If >>>>whatever you will need to find in my program, you will just ask and my response >>>>will be instant. >>> >>>I myself do not offer any executables. Windows executables are not even >>>constructible for me. But Dann Corbit has made a WIN32 executable, >>>and offers all my sources, together with the EXE as >>> ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chest/CHEST319.ZIP (674k) >>>If you want just the EXE (and the READMEs): >>> ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chest/chest319.exe (268k) >>> ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chest/README_LONG (30k) >>> ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chest/README_QUICK >>> ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chest/README >> >> >>Thanks, Heiner! Before I download not from this sources. I went directly to your >>site and can be that I download something for different system. >> >> >>>You should be able to download the above URLs with any browser or ftp program. >>>I suspect that Windows ME does happily execute WIN32 executables, so the >>>exe should be directly usable for you. >> >>Windows Me is not that simple to use. Or I myself screw somehow my Windows ME, >>or it is very prone to instability. It hung all the time. Last time just before >>I came here. > >Hi Leonid, > >I have no experience whatsoever with any Windows Version. > >Hi Dann, > >Can you tell whether the chest319.exe from your ftp site will run >on Windows ME without any trouble? Or whether it can be used from old DOS? >(Excuse me if these are stupid questions) Will go just after writing to the place and will pick the program. Will say you later how it worked. >>>Chest is a console application. For usage and examples please read README_LONG. >>> >>>>Now I am in changing few thing in my mate solver and for this I need some >>>>excellent mate solver as reference. It is not that simple to find as somebody >>>>could imagine. Before I had the impression that Genius 2 could do the work but >>>>later found that its moves number is fixed by 99 limit. The same is true for >>>>other best chess programs and even, to my susprise, for mate solver Mate 2.0. >>>>Mate 2.0 (he is in the package with Hiarcs program) do not permit to indicate >>>>directly number of moves that you would like for him to see. Its number of moves >>>>is once again limited to 99. He do not indicate the time when he think. >>>>It could be that I don't know how to use it. Hiarcs is not very talkative as >>>>programe in general. The best in its openess, between all program that I ever >>>>used, is Rebel. If I will one day end my chess program then I will try to make >>>>everything in my program as clear and accessible as this program did. >> >>>Is the limit 99 >>>(a) for the number of legal moves in a (single) position, or >>>(b) for the depth of the search? >> >>As far as I could understant it is limit for legal number of moves that initial >>position contain. As I could see, when initial position had 54 moves then this >>number was exactly 54. But when I asked for solving position that have initial >>moves 112 (just example), then number was indicated as 99. In the same time >>program indicate how many from those initial moves it already have seen. > >Fine, that is case (a). Chest is fine, here. And this is why your program is more sutable for me to be as reference. My positions goes very often beyond 100 moves and they are very handy for me to see quickly all speed changes in the code. >>>If (a): ok, Chest does better (222) >> >>I still must put my numbers as far. For now it is only 200. >> >>>If (b): sorry, Chest is limited even lower (30, with recompile: 63) >> >>If you speak about maximum number of moves to see, then you have one more >>advantange. Mine can go as far as 13. This is why all my positions never goes >>beyond 13 moves. Probably, I even will not change this limit very soon. > >Yes, that is what I spoke about. >And yes, 13 is nearly always enough. >That can change dramatically, once you have a hash table. >Then depthes beyond 20 are sometimes quite accessible, most notably >with pawn endgames. Yes. >> My goal >>is to go to my chess part as soon, as I will find some way to speed my code when >>working with mate solver. Only when efficency of my chess part will reach mate >>solver code, then it will have sense to extend those 13 moves. For now my chess >>part is deadly slow. Its brute force can only slightly overrun other programs in >>10 plys search. In mate solver (forgetting about your that is wonderful >>exception) speed of mine for mate can go easely between 10 and 100 times beyond >>every best programs speed. I must absolutly recuperate part of it into my chess >>playing part. Mate solver is the best spot to see how much real speed you can >>obtain but not the first place to use it. I hope that you will do the same. You >>have bright chances to succeed. When you will do this, we will have even more >>things in commune to speak about. > >Do you want me to also extend my program to really play chess? >If so, I'm sorry. I have absolutely no plans to do so. I'm specialized >in mate problems, and as far as I can see, that will remain so. >May be some special ideas which I will implement for my mate solver are >adaptable to playing programs, but most probably I will not do so myself. What to do, is personal choice but it could be at a certain moment you will see that chess program is very logical step for you. With your efficiency in mate solver your playing chess part is practically sure winner. Raw speed you have. Mate solver and playing chess part in my program are closely related and for you (after your explantion) it should be even more so. Closeness between mate solver and playing chess part you even make more evident recently when you mentioned something in your solver. I recongnized it as part of "playing chess" in mine and instantly intergrated it into mate solver. Probably, Heiner, and this I say not in order to contradict you, but probably best chess program is lost because you happened to look some other way. Cheers, Leonid. >Cheers, >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.