Author: leonid
Date: 17:54:16 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2001 at 09:23:33, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On August 08, 2001 at 08:56:52, leonid wrote: > >>On August 07, 2001 at 13:33:24, Heiner Marxen wrote: >> >>>On August 04, 2001 at 15:56:13, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On August 04, 2001 at 15:13:24, Angrim wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 04, 2001 at 09:01:36, leonid wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you ready for solving some mate? Here is one: >>>>>> >>>>>>[D]q1qk1q1q/q1qrrq1q/1bQq1Qb1/1Q1QQ1Q1/BNn2nNB/1Q4Q1/3Q4/R2K3R w - - >>>>>> >>>>>>Please indicate your result. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Leonid. >>>>> >>>>>proved that move f6xe7 wins, 12 turns >>>>>PN2:4523172 evals, 98612 expands, 30.16 seconds >>>> >>>>This time we found mate by selective at the same depth but your probably is more >>>>quick. >>>> >>>>12 moves selective in 105 sec. Celeron 600. No hash. >>>> >>>>By brute force I stopped searching before 8 moves. 7 moves took 18 min and 57 >>>>sec. >>> >>>Hello Leonid, hello Angrim! >>> >>>Unfortunately, Chest is not much faster: "no mate in 8" after 38.1 minutes >>>on a K7/600 with 350 MB hash. The effective branching factor is beetween >>>8 and 10, so more depth would cost a lot of time. And depth 12 is not >>>reachable for Chest, here. Sorry. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Heiner >> >>Hi, Heiner! >> >>Thanks for 8 moves! >> >>My branching factor was 9.37, 9.96 and 11.67 between 4 moves and 7, that I look >>by brute force. Your branching is close to mine or better. > >Corresponding values for Chest: 11.69, 8.44 and 9.87. About equal. > >>My time was, starting with 4 moves: 1.043 sec, 9.78 sec, 97 sec, 18 min 57 >>sec. > >Corresponding values for Chest: 0.29s, 3.39s, 28.61s, 282.51s (4 min 42 sec) > >Interestingly, the mate in 4 is already faster for Chest, while more depth >does not change much, in this case. Since the mate in 4 is much shorter for you, it signify that your "2 moves mate" worked more efficiently. It is exactly what is in your and my program "special plies" writing can give as initial speed. I am still very curious to know how those few "special plys" are written in other programs. It look like that, logically, everybody must have "specially written few plys", never mind what that person wrote, mate solver or chess program. It could be that I understood something in a wrong way but when I spoke with one chess program writer (Tom Kerrigan), he insisted that all plys in his chess program, and in every other, have identical writing. Before I spoke with you (when I found that you have also specific plys writing) my guess was that other professional chess program have slow mate search because Tom was right. But is this really so? Have you some idea how other chess programs wrote their plys? Maybe you read some other programs code. My reading, in dispite of all my best wishes, is still close to nothing. 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.