Author: Heiner Marxen

Date: 22:43:20 05/22/01

Go up one level in this thread

On May 22, 2001 at 00:43:13, Pete Galati wrote: >On May 21, 2001 at 21:17:24, leonid wrote: > >>Hello! >> >>I was not sure what position to chose between three close mate positions. >>Decided to put the simplest one today and hardest one at the end, later. >> >>[D]RqqkqqR1/rBNbNBr1/QnqRqnQ1/bqBRBqb1/Q2K2Q1/8/8/8 w - - >> >>Please indicate your result. >> >>Thanks, >>Leonid. > >I needed to load Junior6 on this computer cause I plan to use it in the near >future for an interface to run Comet in the 60 minute per move against Mogens' >Gandalf, so this is what Junior6 had to say: > >New position >RqqkqqR1/rBNbNBr1/QnqRqnQ1/bqBRBqb1/Q2K2Q1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Junior 6.0: > >1.Q4xb5 Qf2+ 2.Kd3 Qd2# > -+ (-#3) depth: 3 00:00:00 6kN >1.Qc2 Qxg4+ 2.Bf4 Qg1+ 3.Qf2 Qxf2+ 4.Be3 Bxe3# > -+ (-45.84) depth: 3 00:00:00 19kN >1.Rxd7+ Nbxd7 2.Nxc6+ Qexc6 3.Bxf6+ Bxf6+ 4.Nxb5 > -+ (-10.25) depth: 3 00:00:00 91kN >1.Nxe6+ Qxe6 2.Nxc6+ Qbxc6 3.Rxd7+ Nbxd7 4.Bxb8 > -+ (-7.44) depth: 3 00:00:00 99kN >1.Nxe6+! > -+ (-7.14) depth: 6 00:00:00 210kN >1.Nxe6+ Qxe6 2.Nxc6+ Qbxc6 3.Rxd7+ Qe6xd7 4.Qxd7+ Nfxd7 5.Qgxc6 Rxa6 6.Bxc8 > -+ (-5.65) depth: 6 00:00:00 316kN >1.Nxe6+! > -+ (-5.35) depth: 9 00:00:01 1336kN >1.Nxe6+! Qxe6 2.Nxc6+ Qbxc6 3.Rxd7+ Qe6xd7 4.Qxf6+ Bxf6 5.Qxd7+ Qc8xd7 6.Rxb8+ >Qcc8 7.Qxd7+ Nxd7 8.Rxc8# > +- (#8) depth: 9 00:00:04 3868kN >1.Nxe6+ Qxe6 2.Nxc6+ Qbxc6 3.Rxd7+ Qe6xd7 4.Qxf6+ Bxf6 5.Qxd7+ Qc8xd7 6.Rxb8+ >Qcc8 7.Qxd7+ Nxd7 8.Rxc8# > +- (#8) depth: 9 00:00:04 4113kN > >It came up with that really fast and then just stopped searching. 63mb hash, >the computer's 700mhz Celeron. > >Pete Well, yes, 4 seconds is about right :-) Chest on a K7/600 (with >= 1MB hash) needs 1.43 sec to solve the mate in 8 and come up with these two PVs: Nxc6+ Qxc6 Nxe6+ Qfxe6 Rxd7+ Qc6xd7 Qxf6+ Bxf6 Qxb6+ Bxb6 Qxd7+ Q6xd7 Qxd7+ Qcxd7 Rxb8# Nxe6+ Qxe6 Nxc6+ Qbxc6 Rxd7+ Qc6xd7 Qxf6+ Bxf6 Qxb6+ Bxb6 Qxd7+ Q6xd7 Qxd7+ Qcxd7 Rxb8# This is sort of an anti-Leonid ;-) The effective branching factor is extremely small: depth seconds # 3 0.01 0.93 62- 0 # 4 0.04 1.06 269- 0 # 5 0.16 1.34 839- 0 # 6 0.38 2.32 2021- 0 # 7 0.89 5.54 4776- 0 # 8 1.40 4.96 7774- 0 Hey, Leonid, what about some problems with lots of pawns? That sort of piece is missing in your creations, up to now, right? Cheers, Heiner

- Re: One very easy mate to solve.
**leonid***12:37:07 05/23/01*- Re: One very easy mate to solve.
**Heiner Marxen***16:35:00 05/23/01*- Re: One very easy mate to solve.
**leonid***19:45:11 05/23/01*- Re: One very easy mate to solve.
**Heiner Marxen***07:30:17 05/24/01*- Re: One very easy mate to solve.
**leonid***12:50:42 05/24/01*- Re: Mating proving techniques (was: One very easy mate to solve.)
**Heiner Marxen***15:24:50 05/24/01*- Re: Mating proving techniques (was: One very easy mate to solve.)
**leonid***16:23:06 05/24/01*

- Re: Mating proving techniques (was: One very easy mate to solve.)

- Re: Mating proving techniques (was: One very easy mate to solve.)

- Re: One very easy mate to solve.

- Re: One very easy mate to solve.

- Re: One very easy mate to solve.

- Re: One very easy mate to solve.

This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.