Author: leonid
Date: 17:59:08 07/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2001 at 18:19:17, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On July 18, 2001 at 14:07:00, leonid wrote: > >>On July 18, 2001 at 06:44:37, Heiner Marxen wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2001 at 22:09:08, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On July 17, 2001 at 19:27:49, Heiner Marxen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 17, 2001 at 08:33:49, leonid wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hello! >>>>>> >>>>>>This position you can try with every program. Its number of moves is only 89. >>>>>> >>>>>>[D]k1qnr3/1qq5/qn2Q3/qN1QqQ1K/qN2QqQ1/RbQQqQ2/1RrbQ3/2BB4 w - - >>>>>> >>>>>>Please indicate your result. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Leonid. >>>>> >>>>>Hi Leonid! >>>> >>>>Hi, Heiner! >>>> >>>>>This one is not as easy to solve for Chest, as usual. After 2.6 hours on a >>>>>K7/600 with 350 MB hash it just found "no mate in 11". The effective >>>>>branching factor has climbed from below 4 to above 10, so the next depth >>>>>most probably will need more than a day :-( Hence I stop here. >>>> >>>>You are already there. Since you found mate in 11, it is mate in 12. My >>>>selective found mate in 12. >>> >>>Fine! From the increasing EBF I suspected already to be near the mate >>>(increased EBF does often occur in last depth with mate, and sometimes one >>>depth before it). >>> >>>>Was able to reach only 10 moves deep by brute force. It took already 11 hours >>>>and 17 min. I must for sure one day install my hash and see the difference. I >>>>hope in few months from now to have my Linux computer and start writing once >>>>again. For now I do almost nothing useful. >>> >>>See estimated factor reached by hash in Chest below as "speed". >>> >>>>My branching factor, as it happened very often, have the same tendency as your. >>>>It was 5, between 4 and 5 moves and ended by 9.2, between 9 and 10 moves. >>> >>>The exact data to compare: >>> >>> depth time EBF[T] EBF[N] speed >>># 1 0.00s 0kN 0.87 1- 0 >>># 2 0.00s 0kN 1.00 1- 0 >>># 3 0.02s 1kN [ 8.43] 0.94 90- 0 >>># 4 0.09s [ 4.50] 4kN [ 5.51] 1.06 521- 0 >>># 5 0.37s [ 4.11] 16kN [ 3.82] 1.36 2000- 0 >>># 6 1.27s [ 3.43] 55kN [ 3.35] 1.62 6781- 0 >>># 7 4.84s [ 3.81] 213kN [ 3.90] 2.20 24475- 0 >>># 8 17.89s [ 3.70] 896kN [ 4.20] 3.05 84227- 0 >>># 9 111.61s [ 6.24] 6190kN [ 6.91] 3.23 519135- 0 >>># 10 870.30s [ 7.80] 47882kN [ 7.74] 3.46 4210571- 9399 >>># 11 9223.60s [ 10.60] 502283kN [ 10.49] 3.40 45603940- 36856039 >>> >>>The effect of the hash table is estimated to speed up by a factor of slightly >>>above 3. That is not dramatic, but quite a difference. >> >>This is very useful to know! I looked into Rebel to have some idea about this >>position and had impression that advantage grows with the depth. For instance, >>on Rebel 10 with and without 20M of hash. >> >>4 moves - 2 min 46 sec. With hash - 1 min 29 sec. >> >>5 moves - Went more that 3 hours and half and disconnected. Had no more >>patience. With hash only 54 min. >> >>Hash for 5 moves gave more advantage that for 4 moves. >> >> >>> >>>Since the estimate sometimes is quite inaccurate, I have run it to depth 8 >>>with hash completely disabled, and found: >>> >>># 3 0.01s 1kN [ 8.43] 1.00 0- 0 >>># 4 0.10s [ 10.00] 5kN [ 6.27] 1.00 0- 0 >>># 5 0.53s [ 5.30] 27kN [ 5.50] 1.00 0- 0 >>># 6 2.74s [ 5.17] 134kN [ 5.01] 1.00 0- 0 >>># 7 14.30s [ 5.22] 700kN [ 5.22] 1.00 0- 0 >>># 8 68.14s [ 4.77] 3405kN [ 4.86] 1.00 0- 0 >>> >>>14.30 / 4.84 = 2.954 > 2.20 >>>68.14 / 17.89 = 3.808 > 3.05 >> >> >>Here my program had for sure worst branching factor. >> >>4 moves - 0.32 sec >> 5 - branching factor >>5 moves - 1.64 sec >> 5.4 >>6 moves - 8.9sec >> 7.22 >>7 moves - 64 sec >> 7.19 >>8 moves - 7 min 40 sec >> 9.58 >>9 moves - 1h 13m 27sec >> 9.2 >>10 moves - 11h 17m 8sec >> >>Heiner, and do you have your branching factor for previous position without >>hash? If you could, send it to me, or indicate here. It is for sake of seeing if >>my branching factor is permenantly worst for brute force, or it is something >>that depend on given position. It could be that my code could be improved much >>more that I initially expected. For now my guess is between 3 and 5 time >>counting 5 moves brute force search. >> >>Previous position was mate in 8 moves. For "maybe", will indicate my time for >>brute force. >> >>4 moves - 0.49sec >> 8.77 >>5 moves - 4.34 sec >> 9.38 >>6 moves - 40.7 sec >> 9.35 >>7 moves - 6 min 20 sec >> >>8 moves, first mate found in 87 sec. > >Well, I can just recompute with hash disabled... >First, with 30MB hash: > ># Posted by leonid (Profile) on July 15, 2001 at 13:26:03: ># Subject: One easy mate to solve. ># http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?179860 >W: Ke1 Qb3 Qc4 Qd5 Qd6 Qf5 Qf6 Qg4 Qh3 Rd2 Rf2 Be2 Nb7 Nh7 (14) >B: Ke8 Qb2 Qc8 Qc3 Qd7 Qe7 Qf7 Qg8 Qg3 Qh2 Rb8 Rh8 Be6 Be5 Nd4 Nf4 (16) >FEN: [D]1rq1k1qr/1N1qqq1N/3QbQ2/3QbQ2/2Qn1nQ1/1Qq3qQ/1q1RBR1q/4K3 w - - >analysing (mate in 8 moves): ># 1 -0.00s 0kN 0.87 1- 0 ># 2 -0.00s 0kN 1.00 1- 0 ># 3 0.02s 1kN [ 10.89] 0.94 92- 0 ># 4 0.16s [ 8.00] 10kN [ 9.22] 1.06 738- 0 ># 5 1.37s [ 8.56] 78kN [ 7.97] 1.24 5936- 0 ># 6 8.91s [ 6.50] 530kN [ 6.82] 1.45 45652- 0 ># 7 63.78s [ 7.16] 3612kN [ 6.82] 3.81 340540- 376 ># 8 336.93s [ 5.28] 17188kN [ 4.76] 3.04 1946475- 1160071 > >Without hash: > ># 3 0.01s 1kN [ 10.89] 1.00 0- 0 ># 4 0.14s [ 14.00] 12kN [ 11.15] 1.00 0- 0 ># 5 1.79s [ 12.79] 142kN [ 12.06] 1.00 0- 0 ># 6 20.44s [ 11.42] 1618kN [ 11.39] 1.00 0- 0 ># 7 246.96s [ 12.08] 18481kN [ 11.43] 1.00 0- 0 ># 8 1887.10s [ 7.64] 132138kN [ 7.15] 1.00 0- 0 > > 246.96 / 63.78 = 3.872 > 3.81 >1887.10 / 336.93 = 5.600 > 3.04 > >Interestingly, without hash for Chest _your_ EBF[T] is significantly better, >here. Uhh, where did I go wrong? :-) Thanks, Heiner! This make me feel better since I had the impression that my branching was even worse in 8 moves that in 12 moves position. I still wait that you will put into your solver graphics to make it easy for direct use. Now, when I like to know something about your program, I must ask you do it for me. When you will have some graphics, or maybe you could indicate me some program that use your engin inside (like Hiarcs 7.32 that come with many engins}, please make me know. Say it for other people as well. I am sure that your solver is only partially known because of its difficult access. It should be known more that this because of its rare quality. 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.