Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: One mate to solve (Chest result)

Author: leonid

Date: 15:47:16 07/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 29, 2001 at 15:29:36, Heiner Marxen wrote:

>On July 27, 2001 at 21:01:50, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>
>>On July 27, 2001 at 19:44:05, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On July 27, 2001 at 19:39:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 27, 2001 at 10:53:28, leonid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are ready, you can solve this problem:
>>>>>
>>>>>[D]1N1k1N1B/q1q1q1q1/1rRbRr2/Q1nBn1Q1/1Q3Q2/n1Q1Q1n1/1Q1Q1Q2/n2K2nb w - -
>>>>>
>>>>>Please indicate your result... even if your program fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>
>>>>chesmaster6000(PIII850 ss=10)
>>>>solution Rexd6+
>>>>3:56 mate in 11
>>>>5:47 mate in 10
>>>
>>>and after 10:49 Rxc7 is mate in 9
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>Chest has "problems" with this problem: to find "no mate in 7" needed already
>>103 minutes.  With an effective branching factor of 15+ the next depth will
>>need more than a full day.  :-(
>>If there is no mate in 8 it is out of reach for Chest.
>>
>>To be continued... :-)
>>
>>Heiner
>
>Ha!  According to Chest this is a mate in 8 :-)
>But what a huge effort to spend: 162992 sec = 2716.5 min = 45.3 hrs = 1.9 days
>on a K7/600 with 350 MB hash.  For a mate in 8 is kind of a record.

Thanks, Heiner!

Mine had so bad branching factor here that it had no chance for going so far.
Even 5 moves already took 3 min and 24 sec. It is great for me to know this
position minimal number for possible future verification. My old positions
(positions that I wrote when I did my mate solver) are already useless. They see
very often mate between  5 and 7 moves deep. Then it was long search for mine
old 80386 25Mhz.

Cheers,
Leonid.





>PV: Qexc5 Bf3+ Bxf3 Ne4 Rcxd6+ Qed7 Rxd7+ Qgxd7 Bxf6+ Nxf6 Qfxf6+ Kc8 Qd8+ Qxd8
>Qgxd8#
>
>Surprisingly, the key move is not a checking one.  It is a capture move,
>but it does not even take one of those queens, but rather a knight.  :-O
>
>Compared with other problems, the effective branching factor is quite bad:
>
> depth   time    EBF[T]              EBF[N]  hash-factor
>#  1      0.00s                 0kN           0.87          1-         0
>#  2      0.00s                 0kN           1.00          1-         0
>#  3      0.02s                 1kN [ 20.33]  0.95         99-         0
>#  4      0.61s [ 30.50]       33kN [ 53.84]  1.05       1640-         0
>#  5     18.04s [ 29.57]      888kN [ 27.04]  1.23      76121-         0
>#  6    359.95s [ 19.95]    17453kN [ 19.66]  1.57    1623694-        16
>#  7   6184.85s [ 17.18]   319730kN [ 18.32]  1.94   26133013-  17385126
>#  8 162992.70s [ 26.35]  4618561kN [ 14.45]  1.91  673926679- 665178778
>
>Also, the speed up by the hash table could be better.  With a recall rate
>of 7.5% the factor stays below 2.
>Sort of a "killer problem" for Chest.  Wow!
>
>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.