Author: leonid
Date: 11:51:11 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 14:35:47, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On May 19, 2001 at 08:13:18, leonid wrote: > >>On May 18, 2001 at 23:56:01, Heiner Marxen wrote: >> >>>On May 17, 2001 at 13:34:19, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>Hi! >>>> >>>>If you would like to solve one mate then try this: >>>> >>>>[D]qr3rqB/3k3B/N1qqq1Nb/Q1n1n2Q/1qQ1Qq1Q/2RPR2Q/Q2K3Q/1q3q1b w - - >>>> >>>>Please indicate your result. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Leonid. >>> >>>Hmm, well. Since you didn't say that it is "very easy", not even mentioned >>>a simple "easy", I should have expected that: there is no mate in 10. >>>Chest on K7/600 with 350 MB hash needed 1.8 hours for this. The effective >>>branching factor from depth 9 to 10 is around 6, so I'm not sure that >>>I can go further than depth 11. To be continued... >> >>Hi! >> >>I already wrote my message when my connection was broken. Now will be very >>brief. This is position in 11 since you looked alread all 10 moves. > >Yes, according to Chest you are right. On K7/600 with 350 MB hash, burning >49980.47 sec (833.0 min) (13.9 hrs) Chest finds a unique key move. >Here is just the PV: > >Nxc5+ Qbxc5 Nxe5+ Qfxe5 Qhxe6+ Qdxe6 Qxe6+ Qcxe6 Qc7+ Qcxc7 Rxc7+ Kxc7 >Q5xe5+ Qxe5 Qhxe5+ Kb6 Q5d4+ Kb5 Qd7+ Kb6 Bd4# > >>I went only first 8 moves and it took 1 hour 56 min. My branching was not that >>good as your. It was very stable between 4 and 7 moves and was 9.5. Only between >>7 and 8 it fell slightly to 8.3. > >Chest timing for branching factor: ># 3 0.03 0.96 76- 0 ># 4 0.20 1.13 653- 0 ># 5 1.44 1.35 3947- 0 ># 6 9.30 1.63 26007- 0 ># 7 68.47 2.07 209752- 0 ># 8 296.66 2.82 917079- 0 ># 9 1097.25 4.13 3622460- 3426 ># 10 6444.29 5.03 25330293- 16582427 ># 11 48443.30 5.45 202160784- 193412883 > > 4-> 5: 7.200 > 5-> 6: 6.458 > 6-> 7: 7.362 > 7-> 8: 4.332 > 8-> 9: 3.698 > 9->10: 5.873 >10->11: 7.517 > >Beetween 7 and 8 my BF is also much smaller. At the end it rises, again, >what is not uncommon near a solution. Overall my BF is much smaller than 9.5. > > >>Will try today to read somewhat from your program description for fun. Yesterday >>when I went to read few lines (it is not code but description that I am looking >>for) I had the impression that it was written on other planet. Nothing in >>commune! > >I hope you like reading from another planet :-) > >> Nevertheless, very often I have the impression that our programs react >>in similar way for similar positions. > >Sure, basically both are mate provers, so they have a lot in common, >regarding the functionality (even if the sources do not look similar). > >Have a nice weekend! >Heiner Hi! Today had very busy day mainly because should go into library and had few thing to do at home. Will later look into your description. But do you remember what is about your file that sound like "Mate 2"? It is not about searching mate at two plys deep? It is the occasion when many shortening in the search process could be done. Attacker can generate only checking moves and for responding side only one legal move will be enough to say that mate not existe. Without taking in consideration this special character of last two plys, general searching process will go some 40% longer. Now I don't remember for what depth I looked when I found this. Cheers, Leonid.
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.